We have never encountered such a tsunami of hatred and unleashed emotions in our political community as we are seeing now ahead of the election.
No matter how much Tisza claims they want to build a “country of love,” by holding up Péter Magyar as their model, they allow themselves far harsher behavior than before.
We need a government where respect is fundamental, and where the leader is calm and rational. That is why Viktor Orbán and Fidesz are the safe choice.
What I see is that although politics has never really been a restrained field—or at least since I’ve been involved, it has always been characteristic, especially around elections, that emotions run high—I can still say that even I have never encountered this kind of unrestrained, vicious wave of attacks. And it’s not just me; I believe our political community, and public life in general, has not faced anything like this either.
I believe that a community fundamentally looks to its leader as a model. And I think that our political opponents currently have a leader who, over the past two years, has demonstrated that there is no need to respect one’s spouse, no need to respect close colleagues, and no need to respect journalists who are simply doing their job. Instead, it is acceptable to speak to them—both on and especially off camera—as if they were dogs. And in front of the cameras, it is also acceptable to insult political opponents in completely unacceptable terms.
I think many people who may have previously communicated more moderately—even despite the online environment—have now felt that Pandora’s box has been opened. And if the leader behaves this way, then they feel they are allowed to do the same. This is especially easy in the online space, where people can hide behind anonymity or distance. It would be very different if these same people had to come up to me in the street and say what they write in comments—telling me to go to hell, insulting my mother, or fantasizing about how they would lynch or hang me—because yes, there are plenty of comments like that as well.
Main Narrative
👉 “They = hatred, aggression, disrespect, threat”
👉 “We = respect, calmness, rationality”
👉 “The opponent’s leader is a corrupt model, therefore their camp is also corrupt”
👉 “The source of political violence and hatred exists only on the other side”
👉 “Orbán and Fidesz = order, stability, moral security”
Hidden Formula
moral panic + demonization + collective guilt projected onto the leader + self-exoneration + presentation of a savior
In other words:
it is not talking about the fact that emotions exist on all sides, but rather that
hatred exists on their side,
respect exists on ours,
therefore the morally correct decision = vote for us.
Why the Text is Hypocritical
Because it does these two things at the same time:
- It condemns hatred
while - It describes the opponent in a way that generates moral disgust toward them
This is a classic rhetorical trick:
it does not openly say “hate them,” but paints a picture from which the audience concludes on their own that
“these are dangerous, corrupt, vile people.”
So the surface of the text: peace, respect, rationality
its actual function: emotional provocation, enemy construction, moral agitation
Manipulation Techniques
1. Moral appropriation
Excerpt:
“We need a government where respect is fundamental, and the leader is calm and rational.”
Technique:
It equates its own side with moral norms: respect, calmness, rationality.
Goal:
To make supporting Fidesz appear not as a political preference, but as a moral duty.
Effect:
Those who disagree are not just different—they appear to be against respect and rationality.
2. Demonization of the opponent
Excerpt:
“rabid attack campaign,” “tsunami of hatred,” “Pandora’s box”
Technique:
Use of highly exaggerated, apocalyptic imagery.
Goal:
To portray the opponent not as a political rival, but as a dangerous, uncontrollable force.
Effect:
Fear, disgust, rejection.
The audience stops evaluating and starts defending.
3. Collective guilt projected onto the leader
Excerpt:
“A community takes its leader as a model”
Technique:
All negative behavior of the opponent’s side is traced back to a single leader’s moral failure.
Goal:
To simplify reality:
if there are toxic commenters, it is because of the opposition leader.
Effect:
Eliminates the need for evidence.
No need to present systemic or mutual escalation—one scapegoat is enough.
4. Indirect character assassination
Excerpt:
“no need to respect one’s spouse,” “no need to respect colleagues,” “speaking to journalists like dogs”
Technique:
Attacks the leader not primarily politically, but on a personal and moral level.
Goal:
Not just disagreement, but contempt.
Effect:
Strong emotional reaction.
Much more effective for mobilization than policy debate.
5. Adopting a victim position
Excerpt:
“being told where to go in comments,” “to be lynched, hanged”
Technique:
Presents oneself as the target of hatred.
Goal:
To evoke empathy and morally distance oneself from all aggression.
Effect:
The audience more easily concludes: “if she is being attacked, she must be right.”
Important: this does not exclude that such comments may actually exist.
But rhetorically, it still functions as self-justification.
6. False asymmetry
Technique:
Presents hatred as a completely one-sided phenomenon.
Goal:
To remove the impression that political radicalization is mutual or systemic.
Effect:
The own side is automatically absolved:
“we are not inciting, we are just reacting.”
Yet the structure of the text itself is inciting, as it portrays the other side as morally contaminated.
7. Linguistic contradiction
Apparent message:
“we need respect”
Actual linguistic function:
Describes the opponent in a way that lowers their human and moral status.
Effect:
The text does not build a culture of respect, but a division between
“civilized people (us)” and “degraded ones (them).”
This is one of the most typical political manipulation techniques.
The Strongest Manipulative Twist
The core trick of the text is this:
it uses the language of condemning hatred to achieve a hatred-driven political goal.
So it does not attack directly like:
“They are vile”
“They are animals”
“They are dangerous”
but more subtly:
“We are just concerned”
“We are just demanding respect”
“We are just calling out hatred”
Yet the end result is the same:
the other side is framed as a moral monster.
Psychological Impact
This text primarily builds on the following emotions:
Fear – “uncontrolled aggression,” “lynching,” “hanging”
Disgust – “speaking like dogs”
Moral superiority – “we respect people”
Defensive reflex – “therefore the safe choice is Fidesz”
It works well in campaigns because it does not lead to thinking, but to taking sides.
What is the real message?
Not:
“let’s reduce hatred in public life”
but rather:
“the other side is morally corrupt and dangerous, therefore only we are acceptable”
One-sentence summary
This text is enemy-constructing campaign rhetoric disguised as “we are respect”: it condemns hatred while simultaneously reproducing it.