“This is who we are! We show that there is no hatred or anger that cannot be overcome by the power of love and unity!”
I also make an effort not to impose on each other here—it’s not necessary. If we know that someone thinks very differently, then it’s better to avoid that topic, because there are so many other things where we see the world the same way. If we are friends, then just because we don’t agree in public affairs, we don’t have to talk about that.
At the same time, I see it the other way around—that from the other side there always seems to be this kind of provocation: if someone knows that we think differently about an issue, then they push it anyway.
We need to set an example. We represent a Christian-conservative example and cause, and we need a great deal of self-discipline, because we do not want to become like what we experience. And of course, it is a basic Christian principle: do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
So no matter how tense everyone’s nerves have become, let’s remain calm and composed. That’s why this community is in such a good mood. Yes. It is. This community.
👉 Main narrative
“we = calm, loving, disciplined”
“they = provoking, creating tension”
“we are morally superior”
“→ therefore our side is the right one”
👉 Hidden formula
moral superiority + community identity + subtle enemy image
→ “we are the good ones → you should identify with us”
🔍 Persuasion techniques
1️⃣ Moral high ground framing
👉 Example:
“there is no hatred… that love cannot overcome”
“Christian principle…”
👉 Technique:
- own side = morally pure, good
- references to universal values (love, peace)
👉 Goal:
➡️ gain moral legitimacy
👉 Effect:
➡️ those who disagree → “not on the good side”
2️⃣ Implicit enemy framing
👉 Example:
“the provocation always comes from there”
👉 Technique:
- no specific group named
- but a clear “they” group is created
👉 Goal:
➡️ maintain conflict, but in a seemingly peaceful tone
👉 Effect:
➡️ subconsciously: “they are the bad ones”
3️⃣ “Us vs. them” framing (soft polarization)
👉 Example:
“we don’t want to be like them”
👉 Technique:
- classic polarization
- but framed as a moral difference, not aggression
👉 Goal:
➡️ strengthen group identity
👉 Effect:
➡️ “we = better people”
4️⃣ In-group bonding (community identity building)
👉 Example:
“this is who we are”
“this community”
👉 Technique:
- strong “we” narrative
- emotional attachment to the group
👉 Goal:
➡️ increase loyalty
👉 Effect:
➡️ leaving = emotional loss
5️⃣ Virtue framing (self-discipline as a moral tool)
👉 Example:
“we need a lot of self-discipline”
👉 Technique:
- turns political behavior into a moral issue
- not strategy → but “good person vs bad person”
👉 Goal:
➡️ control behavior within the group
👉 Effect:
➡️ even internal criticism can seem “immoral”
6️⃣ Conflict avoidance framing
👉 Example:
“better not to talk about this”
👉 Technique:
- avoidance of political debate
- justified in the name of “peace”
👉 Goal:
➡️ reduce critical discussion
👉 Effect:
➡️ fewer clashes → less scrutiny
7️⃣ Religious framing (moral legitimization)
👉 Example:
“Christian principle…”
👉 Technique:
- introduces religious norms
- political stance = moral command
👉 Goal:
➡️ present it as beyond debate
👉 Effect:
➡️ criticism = “moral attack”
⚖️ Overall picture
This is “positive-looking but highly structured propaganda”, where:
- there is no open attack
- there is no explicit lie
- but strong emotional and identity-based influence is present
👉 The key:
it doesn’t say the opponent is bad —
it says “we are good”
→ and everything else follows automatically
🧠 In short
👉 Type of communication:
- “soft propaganda”
- “moral framing”
- “identity-based mobilization”
👉 Main effect:
➡️ it doesn’t make you think → it makes you identify