Author: sneff

orbán propaganda

👉 According to Gergely Karácsony, everything would be perfect if the “evil government” were not punishing Budapest residents with its so-called punitive tax policy. But what do the facts show?

In 2019, Gergely Karácsony took over the capital with HUF 214 billion in reserves. Six years later, we find ourselves in a situation where the country’s wealthiest city has been driven to the brink of bankruptcy, while this year’s budget is based on fictitious revenues.

🟠 For the government, the development of Budapest has always been a top priority—and it will remain so.
In recent years, the Fidesz government has invested several thousand billion forints in the nation’s capital, and numerous large-scale healthcare, education, tourism, and cultural projects are currently underway.

The greatest ally of good governance is reality.
Our political community continues to commit itself to ensuring peace, growth, and security in Budapest and throughout Hungary.

According to Gergely Karácsony, everything here in the capital would be perfect if the evil government were not punishing Budapest residents with its so-called punitive tax policy. But the truth could not be further from what Gergely Karácsony is claiming.

So let’s actually look at the facts. Gergely Karácsony has been mayor since 2019—for six years now. He took over a capital city that was already developing, after the government had carried out numerous investments during the nine years preceding his term. And these developments were not halted by the government during Karácsony’s time in office either.

He took over the city with HUF 214 billion in reserves, and in the span of six years he has managed to run things into such disarray that it became questionable whether the city could even close the current year at the budgetary level.

The capital has continuously adopted budgets—now for the second consecutive time in this cycle—that effectively include fictitious revenues. To be clear for viewers: this means that Gergely Karácsony lists items on the revenue side of the budget—specific figures—that he knows perfectly well will never actually materialize.

1️⃣ “Appeal to facts” – selective use of numbers

“Back in 2019, the capital was taken over with reserves of 214 billion forints.”

🔹 Technique: building authority through numbers
🔹 Problem:

  • it is not made clear how much of this amount was actually freely usable,
  • there is no mention of the pandemic, the energy crisis, or inflation,
  • there is no context: how did the financial trajectories of other major cities develop during the same period?

👉 Framing: “there was money → now there isn’t → therefore the city leadership must be incompetent”

2️⃣ “They bankrupted it” – strong emotional labeling

“They bankrupted the country’s richest city.”

🔹 Technique: dramatization + stigmatization
🔹 Fact:

  • legally, there is no bankruptcy procedure,
  • “bankruptcy” here is a political metaphor, not an economic category.

👉 Effect: fear-mongering and reinforcing the perception of incompetence.

3️⃣ “Fictitious revenues” – an unproven accusation

“This year’s budget is based on fictitious revenues.”

🔹 Technique: vague accusation
🔹 Missing:

  • which revenues exactly?
  • according to what calculation are they “fictitious”?
  • has there been any independent professional assessment on this?

👉 Goal: to sow suspicion without making a verifiable claim.

4️⃣ The government as the “good steward” – self-glorification

“Several thousand billion forints have been spent on the capital.”

🔹 Techniques:

  • quantitative exaggeration (“several thousand billion”),
  • listing projects without any concrete impact assessment.

🔹 Omission:

  • these are state investments, not part of the city’s own budget,
  • many projects were removed from municipal control by political decisions.

👉 Narrative: “we provide → they mess it up”

5️⃣ Declaration of moral superiority

“The main ally of a good government is reality.”

🔹 Technique: moral exclusion
🔹 Message:

  • anyone who disagrees is against reality itself,
  • there is no debate, only “good” and “bad” sides.

👉 A classic authoritarian communication formula.

6️⃣ Closing slogan – a promise package without content

“Peace, prosperity, and security.”

🔹 Technique: empty, positive buzzwords
🔹 Absent:

  • how,
  • from what resources,
  • for whom,
  • at what cost.

👉 Emotional closure, so no questions remain.

🎯 Overall picture

This text is not really about how Budapest functions. It is about:

  • shifting responsibility (blaming Gergely Karácsony),
  • self-justification (“we have done everything”),
  • and constructing a black-and-white political reality.

💡 Instead of real debate:
numbers without context + accusations without evidence + claims of moral superiority.

orbán propaganda

Please choose❗️

1️⃣
There is a prime minister whose offer to Hungarian voters is that Hungary will:

  • CERTAINLY not go to war, just as it hasn’t so far.
  • CERTAINLY not allow in migrants, just as it hasn’t so far.
  • And CERTAINLY there will be no austerity measures, because we will not send Hungarians’ money to Ukraine, just as we haven’t so far.

2️⃣
The other prime-ministerial candidate has been bragging for the third (!) day that he managed to reserve a website, a domain name.
What a huge achievement 😂🤡

Too bad that meanwhile:

  • he is a member of the most pro-war, pro-migration, Ukraine-friendly European party family;
  • his direct boss, Manfred Weber, is a warmonger;
  • and his left-wing “experts” have already prepared an austerity package that would make the lives of Hungarian families miserable.

❗️Only a fool would vote for option 2️⃣.
Fidesz will do just fine for us — the SAFE CHOICE 🇭🇺

1️⃣ False dilemma (false dichotomy)

“Choose❗️ Option 1️⃣ or Option 2️⃣”

The post claims there are only two possible futures, mutually exclusive:

  • 1️⃣ = peace, security, prosperity
  • 2️⃣ = war, migration, austerity

👉 Propaganda technique:
This is not comparison. It is pre-decided judgment disguised as choice.

Reality:

  • Politics offers multiple paths, actors, and outcomes.
  • Presenting only two extremes is intellectual coercion, not debate.

2️⃣ Future promises presented as guaranteed facts

“We will CERTAINLY not go to war.”
“There will CERTAINLY be no austerity.”

👉 Technique: turning uncertain future events into absolute certainties.

Why this is manipulation:

  • Wars are not decided by campaign slogans.
  • Austerity depends on economic reality, not rhetoric.
  • The word “certainly” functions as psychological sedation, not evidence.

3️⃣ Guilt by association (enemy-chain framing)

The second option is framed as:

  • “pro-war”
  • “pro-migration”
  • “pro-Ukraine”
  • “preparing austerity”

Then linked to:

  • Manfred Weber
  • labeled a “direct boss”
  • called a “war agitator”

👉 Key trick:
No actions are analyzed.
Only associations are weaponized.

This is collective guilt, not argumentation.

4️⃣ Ridicule instead of rebuttal

“For the third day he’s bragging about registering a domain name 🤡😂”

👉 Purpose:
Not to refute, but to humiliate.

This is classic:

  • mockery,
  • belittlement,
  • “clown framing”.

If the opponent is ridiculous, no debate is required.

5️⃣ The invented austerity threat

“Their experts already have an austerity package ready.”

  • No sources.
  • No details.
  • No accountability.

👉 This is fear projection, not information:

  • unverifiable,
  • emotionally charged,
  • strategically effective.

6️⃣ Open voter contempt

“Only an idiot would vote for option 2️⃣.”

This is no longer subtle:

  • dissenters = idiots,
  • alternatives = illegitimate,
  • voters = to be disciplined, not respected.

👉 This is authoritarian rhetoric, not democratic persuasion.

7️⃣ Final cognitive shutdown: slogan as substitute for thinking

“We’re fine with Fidesz, the SAFE CHOICE 🇭🇺”

This is cognitive closure:

  • stop thinking,
  • stop questioning,
  • trust the label.

“Safe” replaces reasoning.

One-sentence summary

This post does not argue.
It simplifies, frightens, ridicules, shames, and finally declares all alternatives morally illegitimate.

That is propaganda — not persuasion.

orbán propagandista balázska

A “brave” Tisza Party candidate has surfaced from North Pest: Anna Müller. She doesn’t actually come out to face voters, but you can ask her questions—strictly in writing. So feel free to send in your questions!

Well, I did send them some questions. For example, I asked why she did not protest when Manfred Weber, the EPP boss of Péter Magyar, said that he wants to see European soldiers—including Hungarian soldiers—in Ukraine. Or whether she agrees with Tisza-affiliated experts who have repeatedly stated that, in their view, migration is a beneficial thing.

You can send your questions to my email address with the subject line “Questions and Answers.”
The rest of the questions later!
THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS LATER!

1️⃣ “Brave candidate” – ironic shaming

“A brave Tisza Party candidate has surfaced…”

This is pseudo-praise; in reality, it is mockery.
Its purpose is to portray the candidate as cowardly without having to engage in any real debate.

👉 Rhetorical device: irony + character erosion
👉 Actual substance: none

2️⃣ Distorting “questions in writing only”

Asking questions in writing is:

  • a normal campaign practice,
  • legally and communicationally defensible,
  • a way to ensure precise answers.

Here, however, it is framed as if it were:

  • hiding,
  • contempt for voters.

👉 Technique: a normal procedure reframed as suspicious behavior

3️⃣ Pre-packaged “war” questions

The questions are not about Müller Anna, but about:

  • Manfred Weber,
  • Magyar Péter,
  • “European soldiers in Ukraine,”
  • “migration as a beneficial thing.”

This is a complicity trap:

“If she didn’t protest, then she agrees.”

👉 Logical fallacy: false transfer of responsibility
👉 Political goal: branding her as “pro-war” and “pro-migration”

4️⃣ “The rest of the questions later” – control theater

“THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS LATER!”

This is not openness; it is a display of power:

  • he sets the pace,
  • he decides what counts as a question,
  • he frames the so-called “dialogue.”

👉 In reality: it’s not questioning, it’s messaging.

Why you shouldn’t ‘sink to this level’

Because this is not debate, but:

  • provocation,
  • clickbait,
  • feeding one’s own base.

If someone responds:

  • they’ve already lost a step,
  • they’ve legitimized the style,
  • they’ve stepped into a pre-written role.

What’s worth doing instead?

✔️ Maintain standards
✔️ Stick to facts
✔️ Don’t react to every bark

As you wrote:

“I don’t think she would want to sink to the level of this Balázs guy — and she doesn’t have to.”

orbán viktor propaganda.. with szandi

❗ Strong Budapest, strong Hungary!
The capital is our country’s most well-known and most visited tourist destination. 👉 This is where most businesses are based, where more than a third of the gross domestic product is generated, so it is a fundamental interest of the Hungarian government to further develop Budapest.

When Gergely Karácsony denies this, he is deliberately distorting reality. The mayor ignores the enormous amount of development—worth 3,000 billion forints—that has been carried out thanks to the government. ❌ In contrast, after six years as mayor, the only “achievement” he can point to is the constant shifting of responsibility.

Budapest is a sad example of what happens when the left comes to power. But you don’t have to be a Fidesz supporter to think this. Without a strong capital, there is no strong country. And this is not just talk.

So when a tourist comes here, where do they come? They come to Budapest, not to “Hungary.” Of course, we should also work on attracting visitors elsewhere, not only to Budapest—but let’s not deny that our main marketing product in the world, in tourism terms, is Budapest.

And let’s go through it point by point. When there is a major sporting event, it is usually held in Budapest. Where is the economic power? In Budapest. Most businesses are in Budapest. I’m only saying this because one has to be very sly—and I believe Gergely Karácsony is sly—when someone tries to deny the facts, reality itself, and pretend that the Hungarian government has no fundamental interest in developing this city, regardless of what we think about Karácsony’s performance.

And sorry, but I have to say it again: let’s look at the facts. Gergely Karácsony talks nonsense about how important this city is to him. And what has he done? What has he done in six years? His only achievement—if it can even be called that, and even then it’s a purely political one—is that he skillfully shifts responsibility.

But that doesn’t make me, as a citizen of Budapest, happy at all. A capital of this size, which in fact has constantly growing potential in the heart of Europe, which is safe and has all the necessary conditions, should not be treading water, dancing left and right for six years. It should be racing forward.

So let’s not call it an achievement that “oh, we were so clever, we didn’t go bankrupt.” Much more could be made of this city.

1️⃣ False equivalence: Budapest = government = country

Key lines from the speech:

  • “Without a strong capital, there is no strong country.”
  • “Budapest is our main marketing product.”
  • “It is a fundamental interest of the government to develop the city.”

This suggests that:

  • anyone who criticizes the government is acting against Budapest,
  • anyone who raises Budapest’s problems is working against the country.

This is a false logical chain, but politically very effective.

2️⃣ Throwing around numbers without context (3,000 billion)

The claim of “3,000 billion forints in development” is a classic propaganda trick:

  • no breakdown (what, when, whose decision),
  • no time frame,
  • no comparison with other capitals,
  • no accountability.

The figure is an emotional weapon, not professional data.

3️⃣ Personal attacks → character assassination

In the case of Gergely Karácsony, what appears is not policy debate, but:

  • calling him “sly,”
  • saying he “talks nonsense,”
  • claiming his “only achievement is shifting responsibility.”

👉 This is not criticism, but delegitimization.
The goal is not to argue with him, but to discredit him as a person.

4️⃣ “Not going bankrupt” as cynical distortion

This part is especially revealing:

  • “Let’s not call it an achievement that we didn’t go bankrupt.”

What is happening here?

  • the government takes away resources,
  • then mocks the city for merely surviving.

This is a classic power technique:

  • first, I restrict your room to maneuver,
  • then I demand to know why you’re not soaring.

5️⃣ Playing the role of the “Budapest citizen”

Szentkirályi speaks as if:

  • “I’m just a Budapest citizen, and this doesn’t make me happy.”

This is a pseudo-civilian position:

  • she does not speak as a government representative,
  • but as an “average citizen.”

Yet she is precisely the mouthpiece of the government’s narrative.

6️⃣ The final message (this is the essence)

If we condense it into one sentence:

“If Budapest does not develop visibly, it is the mayor’s fault — even if the government controls the money.”

This:

  • prepares the ground for further attacks,
  • justifies the withdrawal of funds,
  • politically closes the debate.

Conclusion – why is this speech dangerous?

Because it:

  • conflates the country with the government,
  • dumps the city’s problems onto one individual,
  • demands emotional loyalty instead of professional debate,
  • cynically relativizes the government’s responsibility.

This is not about Budapest’s future — it is about who owns the narrative.

orbán viktor propagandistája…

😤 I am always astonished by the kind of people who make up that so-called “other side,” with whom we stand in complete political opposition. But it now seems we have reached a point where it is no longer only our political views that separate us, but also our way of life and our behavior.
Of course, this is not necessarily true of everyone who openly identifies as anti-Fidesz; among them there are people who are capable of thinking and, in some cases, even of being reasonable debate partners. And that is a good thing.

The problem, however, is that there exists a massive group of people who are least objectionable to me not because we stand on different political platforms. For example, I am now reading the news that those Hadházy supporters who, back when the weather was nicer, gathered in relatively larger numbers to shout weekly across Ferenciek Square under the leadership of our country’s “zebra commissioner,” will now have to pay—quite literally—for blasphemy.

Four people were fined for entering the church located at Ferenciek Square during one of Ákos Hadházy’s demonstrations last September. During the protest, while speeches were being delivered, the church bells rang continuously for 17 minutes, and several protesters entered the church through its main gate to demonstrate. These four individuals were charged with violating the right to freedom of religion and were fined. According to the newspaper, proceedings for disorderly conduct are ongoing against three other individuals.

And here I could also include all those who, assigned to the pages of right-wing content creators, engage daily in smearing, slander, and threats while hiding behind the safe protection of the virtual world. You see, these people—who engage in filth, blasphemy, slander, and threats against our children—are still our fellow citizens. We live together in this wonderful country; in the best case, we build it together and keep it running together, both during campaign periods and beyond.

Until now, we merely disagreed. But encouraged by the leader of Tisza, these people now want our blood, because in their view we deserve retribution. Yet disagreement does not mean that one must destroy the other, nor does it mean humiliating God’s house with a vulgar protest. There should be a minimum standard, a basic line, of what we do not do to one another, what we do not wish upon our fellow citizens.

I sincerely hope that at least some of these people will, after April, reflect even slightly on what they have done over the past year and a half, whether in reality or in the virtual world. And those who do not will at least be a little less proud of having wanted to spill Hungarian blood as Hungarians.
Only 91 days left.

This is not a moral stance, but the manufacturing of an enemy image.

1️⃣ Construction of moral superiority

The author begins by making an “exception” (“not everyone is like this”), then immediately proceeds to collectively stigmatize an entire political side.
👉 This is classic “sensible us vs. immoral them” framing.

2️⃣ Instrumentalization of religion

A specific legal case—linked to one of Ákos Hadházy’s demonstrations—is presented as a civilizational attack.
The church at Ferenciek Square is not treated as a religious space, but as a political bludgeon.

👉 The concern is not freedom of religion, but symbolic outrage.

3️⃣ Deliberate emotional escalation

The text progresses step by step:

  • “unpleasant”
  • “blasphemers”
  • “slanderers”
  • “they threaten our children”
  • “they want our blood”

👉 This is not description; it is a chain designed to inflame emotions.

4️⃣ Presumption of guilt and collective responsibility

From the actions of a handful of individuals, an entire political community is declared guilty.
This is not rule-of-law thinking, but mass-psychological incitement.

5️⃣ Veiled threat at the end

“Only 91 days left.”
This is not hope, but campaign-level intimidation:
👉 you may speak now, but judgment is coming.

Short, publishable summary

This is not public debate; it is propaganda.
The text uses religion, legal cases, and isolated incidents to morally dehumanize a political community and then present it as a collective threat.
The “we are peaceful – they want blood” narrative is not about social coexistence, but about fear-mongering and mobilization.
This is the point where political communication crosses the boundary of civilized debate.

orbán viktor and szentkirályi

We have already lined up the initial sixteen candidates with whom, according to our plans, we will head into this April’s election, and I am very optimistic. I believe, first of all, that Budapest is also a very strong bastion of the national side. If we look around Europe and examine other capitals to see how much support right-wing forces have there, or how much backing they command, we can see that Budapest is practically the strongest bastion among European capitals.

On the other hand, it is essential that those people who are entering the fight, entering the battle in April, have clear messages, clear answers, and clear goals. I think this is very obvious. And I believe that the election ultimately comes down to two alternatives.

There is a tested team that has proven itself in every difficult situation and crisis of recent years, which has always stood on the side of the Hungarian people—whether in times of war, pandemics, migration, or attempts to burden people with extra costs. Opposing them is another team which, now as always with left-wing forces in recent years, is financed from abroad and therefore directed from abroad.

For them, what happens to people and what is good for people here in Hungary will be of secondary importance. Their primary concern will be the interests of their foreign financiers.

❗ Budapest is a strong bastion of the national side.
Our selected team of 16 candidates in the capital will work every day to improve the lives of Budapest’s citizens.

They are proven, reliable people who have stood their ground in every situation and always chosen the right side — whether it was migration, war, or economic pressure.

👉 Left-wing candidates would represent Brussels’ will.
They would sell off the pride and dignity of the nation’s capital, raise taxes, and welcome illegal migrants with open arms.

In April, we will choose together between two paths.
🟠 FIDESZ – The safe choice!

1️⃣ War Framing (“fight,” “battle,” “bastion”)

Politics is presented here not as a democratic competition, but as:

  • a fight,
  • a battle,
  • a bastion.

👉 This reflects militarized thinking, which:

  • excludes cooperation,
  • legitimizes aggressive communication,
  • frames opponents not as debate partners but as enemies.

This is not accidental wording — it is psychological mobilization.

2️⃣ False European Comparison (“Budapest is the strongest right-wing bastion”)

The claim:

“Budapest is practically the strongest bastion of the right wing among European capitals”

📌 Is unsupported by any data.

It remains unclear:

  • which election?
  • which time period?
  • which indicator?

👉 This is an empty legitimizing phrase, designed to:

  • inflate the self-confidence of the base,
  • deny the real political pluralism of Budapest.

3️⃣ Bipolar Worldview (False Dichotomy)

Throughout the text, reality is reduced to two alternatives:

✔️ “a tested national team capable of managing crises”
❌ “a left wing financed and directed from abroad”

👉 This is the classic “we are the nation — they are the outsiders” narrative.

There is no room for:

  • policy debates,
  • nuanced criticism,
  • acknowledgment of internal failures.

4️⃣ Foreign Funding as a Universal Stigma

The claim that the opposition is “financed and directed from abroad” is:

  • unproven,
  • vague,
  • yet morally condemning.

👉 Its purpose is not to inform, but to:

  • suggest treason,
  • morally delegitimize the opponent,
  • emotionally lock in voters.

5️⃣ The Empty Mantra of “Standing with the People”

Phrases like “we stood on the side of the people”:

  • name no concrete policies,
  • assume no responsibility for failures,
  • function as identity-substituting slogans.

👉 “The people” here is not real social diversity, but an abstract moral shield.

Conclusion

This speech is:

❌ not a program,
❌ not a vision,
❌ not an accountability exercise,

but rather:
✔️ a loyalty test,
✔️ fear framing,
✔️ enemy construction.

The most important message is not what they want to do, but:

“Anyone who is not with us is against us — and serves foreign interests.”

orbán viktor prooaganda

You said that Barkóci Balázs has invited you to a debate. Do you accept? Yes.

Yesterday, after the congress, he posted on Facebook saying “let’s debate,” but I had already made it clear that I’m willing to talk with anyone—politicians, one‑on‑one, in front of journalists, before voters—I don’t care. Let’s discuss North Pest.

Sure, Barkóci Balázs called; he’s the guy from Dékás who, together with the mayor over the past four years, has essentially wrecked—or even worse, ruined—North Pest. I’ll tell him how I would put it on an upward trajectory.

I’m increasingly curious because you want more of us to show up; I’m also wondering whether Müller’s candidate will be there at Tiszás, because in my opinion he won’t. I think they’re keeping his mouth shut so he can’t speak.

Orbán, war, Ukraine, and Szandi

Every young Hungarian has the right to know:
anyone who votes for the Tisza Party or the Democratic Coalition is voting against their own future.

Those who choose these parties may end up paying Ukrainian war bonds for the rest of their lives, while Tisza’s Brussels bosses would conscript them into the military.

❗ Hungarian young people deserve a far better future than this.
Use your common sense, and this spring choose the only safe path: Fidesz.

2026.01.10

orban viktor..

Turn on subtitles in other languages

These are not staged scenes. This is reality — January 10, 2026.
If you think statements like this are impossible, I have to say: sadly, there is a part of society that has been this deeply conditioned by TV and radio propaganda.