The whole country is laughing at the Tisza candidates 😅 No one seriously wants to entrust the leadership of the country to a team like this in a time of danger, in the shadow of war, right?
Now that the whole country is laughing at the Tisza candidates — and rightly so, completely rightly — one of them doesn’t even know the name of their own town, another is talking absolute nonsense on stage, and a third one, for example in my area in North Pest, can’t even speak on any topic at all.
So after all this, one of them wrote yesterday that he apologizes — he’s a gardener, he made mistakes, he’s not a professional, and he’s sure he will make mistakes in the future as well.
Just a small question: are we really, in a time of danger, supposed to entrust the country to people like this? People who already admit they will make mistakes?
What happens if they make a mistake in negotiations about Ukraine, about war, about utility price cuts, or about migration?
“Sorry, we made a mistake — we’re going to war.”
“Sorry, we made a mistake — migrants are flooding Hungary.”
“Sorry, we made a mistake — fuel will cost 1,000 forints and utility bills will triple.”
No, absolutely not.
🔍 Main narrative
👉 “The opponent is incompetent and ridiculous”
👉 “They are unfit in dangerous times”
👉 “If they come to power → it will be a disaster”
👉 “The election = safety vs. collapse”
➡️ This is a incompetence + apocalyptic consequences framing.
🧠 Influence and incitement techniques
1️⃣ Bandwagon effect (plus shaming)
“The whole country is laughing at them”
Technique:
➡️ false sense of majority
➡️ social pressure (“everyone thinks this”)
➡️ making them look ridiculous
Goal:
➡️ undecided people don’t want to belong to the “mocked side”
Effect:
➡️ conformity
➡️ reduced critical thinking
⚠️ Reality: there is no proof that “the whole country” thinks this
2️⃣ Character assassination (ad hominem)
“can’t even name their town”, “talks complete nonsense”
Technique:
➡️ exaggerating isolated mistakes
➡️ generalizing from individual slip-ups
Goal:
➡️ destroy credibility completely
Effect:
➡️ arguments no longer matter, only discrediting the person
3️⃣ Generalization (individual → entire group)
“would you trust a team like this with the country?”
Technique:
➡️ a few examples → entire political group
➡️ turning the opponent into a uniform mass
Goal:
➡️ create a simple black-and-white choice
4️⃣ False dilemma (false dichotomy)
“they = mistakes → disaster” vs. “us = safety”
Technique:
➡️ no middle ground
➡️ no nuance
Goal:
➡️ force a choice:
“if not us → then chaos”
5️⃣ Fearmongering (classic incitement element)
Key phrases:
- “in the shadow of war”
- “migrants will flood the country”
- “fuel will cost 1000 HUF”
- “utility bills will triple”
Technique:
➡️ stacking worst-case scenarios
➡️ using vivid, shocking imagery
Goal:
➡️ emotional shock
➡️ trigger fear
Effect:
➡️ rational thinking shuts down
➡️ security-driven voting
6️⃣ Strawman
“sorry, we made a mistake, now we’re going to war”
Technique:
➡️ distorting the opponent’s intentions
➡️ pushing absurd conclusions
Goal:
➡️ create an easily attackable, simplified enemy
7️⃣ Twisting the competence paradox
“he’s a gardener, he will make mistakes”
Technique:
➡️ framing honesty as weakness
➡️ turning human fallibility into incompetence
Goal:
➡️ reinforce the idea that “professionalism = no mistakes”
8️⃣ Escalation (chain reaction)
By the end of the text:
➡️ mistake → war
➡️ mistake → migration
➡️ mistake → economic collapse
Technique:
➡️ step-by-step fear escalation
⚠️ Nature of incitement
This is not classic violent incitement, but:
👉 psychological-political incitement
- builds on fear
- constructs an enemy image
- projects irrational consequences
➡️ goal: emotional mobilization + delegitimizing the opponent
🎯 Overall effect
The text simultaneously:
- discredits (makes the opponent look ridiculous)
- generates fear
- oversimplifies reality
- creates a forced choice
➡️ This is a “incompetent clowns vs. survival of the country” framing.
🧩 What’s the core problem with it?
- No evidence → only claims
- System-level conclusions from isolated mistakes
- Extreme, unrealistic consequences
- Heavy emotional overload
- Eliminates rational debate