Share this so that everyone can see Péter Magyar’s so-called “country of love”!
An aggressive Tisza activist was shouting at elderly women in the street.
This is where the incitement, agitation, and stream of lies that the Tisza spreads every day lead.
As women, we will have a special responsibility on April 12 to say no to this violent world and to stand for a world of peace and calm instead.
You shouldn’t do so much coke, because unfortunately it makes people this stupid.
Did you see that little guy pumping himself up, that Tisza activist called “Thanos”?
Where is the 1.7 billion? Where is the 1.7 billion? Where is the 1.7 billion?
Well, this guy — let’s put it this way — went up to elderly women who were standing at a Fidesz booth and spoke to them in a completely unacceptable manner.
I don’t know — do you have a mother or a grandmother?
How would you feel if someone went up to them, spoke to them like that, and recorded it while doing so?
It’s unbelievably low and trashy behavior.
You shouldn’t do so much coke, because unfortunately it makes people this stupid.
And that’s exactly why you won’t win the election.
Anyone who treats others like this — and whose supporters behave like you — certainly won’t gain people’s trust in April.
1️⃣ Topic diversion (redirection)
Key sentence:
“An aggressive Tisza activist was shouting at elderly women on the street.”
📌 Technique:
The real issue is the disappearance of 1.7 billion forints, but the communication suddenly shifts attention to a street confrontation.
🎯 Goal:
To move public discussion away from the money and accountability, and toward an emotionally charged incident.
💥 Effect:
The audience no longer asks:
“Where is the 1.7 billion?”
but instead asks:
“Why was an activist shouting?”
2️⃣ Generalizing a single incident
Key sentence:
“This is what the incitement, agitation, and flood of lies that Tisza spreads every day leads to.”
📌 Technique:
A single conflict is presented as the behavior of an entire political community.
🎯 Goal:
To frame an individual action as the consequence of a whole political movement.
💥 Effect:
A simple narrative forms in the viewer’s mind:
one activist → entire political side
3️⃣ Moral framing
Key sentence:
“We women will have a special responsibility…”
📌 Technique:
The conflict is reframed as a moral and identity-based issue.
🎯 Goal:
To present voting not as a political choice, but as a moral decision.
💥 Effect:
Anyone who disagrees is implicitly placed on the “violent side.”
4️⃣ Personal discrediting (ad hominem)
Key phrases:
- “a Tisza activist called Thanos”
- “you shouldn’t take this much coke”
- “that’s why someone becomes this stupid”
📌 Technique:
The discussion is shifted from the actual question to attacking the person asking it.
🎯 Goal:
To make the opponent appear ridiculous or primitive.
💥 Effect:
The audience laughs at or gets angry at the person, instead of focusing on the substance of the question.
5️⃣ Emotional manipulation (grandmother frame)
Key sentence:
“Do you have a mother or a grandmother?”
📌 Technique:
The story is framed with family and generational emotions.
🎯 Goal:
To make the event appear morally much more severe.
💥 Effect:
People react emotionally rather than rationally.
6️⃣ Repeated avoidance of the main question
Interestingly, the text only mentions the question as a quote:
“Where is the 1.7 billion?”
📌 Technique:
The question is never actually answered.
Instead, it is used only to criticize the behavior of the person asking it.
🎯 Goal:
To shift the focus from the content of the question to the tone of the questioner.
💥 Effect:
The debate transforms from:
financial accountability → behavioral controversy
✅ Summary
The core communication strategy consists of:
- Diverting attention away from the 1.7-billion-forint issue
- Amplifying a single conflict
- Moral framing (“women”, “peace”)
- Personal discrediting
- Emotional manipulation (the “grandmother” narrative)
As a result, the speech is not about the money or accountability, but about an emotionally charged conflict that shifts attention away from the real question.