❓ How many articles were published in the Tisza-aligned media claiming that migrants “devastated” Western Europe on New Year’s Eve? 🤡
None.
They are hiding reality, just like they do with the left-wing austerity package.
“And what will happen to the city hospitals—good afternoon!
So if you build one so-called super hospital for every three counties, that means a facility with at least 1,500–2,000 active beds, which requires an enormous number of doctors and nurses. Where are they supposed to come from? Will they be taken from elsewhere—perhaps from the city hospitals?
Then what happens to places like Kapuvár, Csorna, Pápa, and others?
A left-leaning healthcare expert even said on ATV that maintaining and developing super hospitals and small city hospitals at the same time simply does not work. This was already stated during the Centrum Hospital program years ago—even under the Gyurcsány government—that these two models cannot coexist.
But you can’t win elections by openly saying, ‘I’m closing hospitals.’
So our position is that these city-level hospitals must be preserved within a portfolio that matches the actual local healthcare needs.
You cannot do this to families—you can’t force them to travel 80 kilometers just to visit their grandfather. What kind of inhumane thinking is that?
So I would strongly caution everyone: the idea of a super hospital sounds great, but in reality it means a hospital-closure program.”
And this is where the biggest contradiction appears 👇
In 2018, when the South Buda Central Hospital and the entire central hospital system were being planned at full speed,
when:
👉 somehow the lack of doctors and nurses never came up.
Even though:
So the question is legitimate—and unavoidable:
📌 If today the problem is that there aren’t enough staff for a super hospital,
then where were the doctors and nurses supposed to come from in 2018?
📌 Where were they supposed to appear from?
📌 Or did it simply not matter back then?
🎭 What are we actually seeing?
What Péter Takács is saying today is:
In 2018:
In 2024–2026:
👉 This is not a professional mistake.
👉 It is political irresponsibility—now repackaged as “sober criticism.”
not need words..
I announced a betting game five days ago.
I was wondering whether this year the number of cars would be above one thousand or remain below one thousand — the number of cars that “suburban youths” (that’s the politically correct term they use) simply set on fire as a hobby in France on New Year’s Eve. Well, time to guess!
And here are the results. This time, nearly 1,200 cars were set on fire in France by migrants on New Year’s Eve. Last year, the number was still below one thousand. The situation is catastrophic, and it is getting worse year after year.
❓Is this really the kind of Europe we want?❓
Where every New Year’s Eve is about immigrant animals (called “suburban youths” in liberal doublespeak 🤡) smashing things up, blowing things up, setting cars on fire, lynching police officers, killing people???
Is this acceptable❓
🔥 This year again, information is leaking out relatively slowly — just like after the infamous 2015 Cologne mass assaults — but by now, by the morning of January 2, the picture is clear:
Western Europe has fallen❗️
Just a few examples:
🇳🇱 The most brutal “celebration” this time took place in the Netherlands!
At least two people were killed, many were injured in street battles.
Police officers and firefighters said they were attacked by immigrants with firecrackers, fireworks, stones, and Molotov cocktails. They encountered a level of aggression they had never experienced before.
Hospitals were overwhelmed, and 250 people were arrested.
🇩🇪 In Germany — as I already pointed out on New Year’s Eve — immigrants deliberately provoked and shot at police officers, firefighters, and paramedics as well!
🇧🇪 In Belgium, for example in Antwerp, 10–12-year-old youths threw objects at police officers. Even when they were detained, their parents came to the police station, took them home, and laughed it off, mocking the foolish Belgian (European…) police and laws.
Meanwhile, law-abiding Belgians — say, those whose cars were burned — are left staring in disbelief, wondering where everything went wrong…
🇫🇷 In France, cars were once again set on fire by the dozens. For example in Strasbourg as well — where left-wing, liberal (Tisza, DK!!!) MEPs like to pass pro-immigration resolutions in the European Parliament.
☝️ One could list many more countries, but there is no point.
We know and see the essence — and over there in the West, it no longer matters anyway: they have lost.
❗️If Brussels-aligned parties gain power at home, Hungary will fall too.
📸 Photo: street scene in the Netherlands on January 1, 2026 🤷♂️
“immigrant animals,” “youth thugs,” “migrant-hugger”
👉 This is deliberate linguistic violence.
The goal is not to understand events, but to provoke emotional reactions:
When an entire group is described as animals, it provides moral cover for simplification and collective guilt.
“IMMIGRANTS ONCE AGAIN WRECKED WESTERN MAJOR CITIES”
❗ There is no:
👉 Isolated riots are turned into a continent-wide collapse narrative.
This is not information — it is emotional montage.
“natives”
“immigrants”
“the West has fallen”
“we are still standing”
This creates a closed cognitive frame:
👉 The goal is not to win a debate, but to exclude criticism.
The text does not mention that:
👉 Anything that doesn’t fit the narrative is labeled “liberal diversion.”
“If Brussels-aligned parties gain power at home, Hungary will fall too.”
This is not a forecast — it is a threat:
Only:
either us — or chaos
The structure is almost identical to Russian state messaging:
This is not accidental.
This is an imported narrative, translated into Hungarian.
As long as everyone is:
we are not talking about:
👉 Fear is a tool of distraction.
Németh Balázs is not analyzing Europe — he is manufacturing fear.
He offers no solutions, only enemies.
He does not inform — he mobilizes anger and loyalty.
Only 100 days left until we decide:
Will we continue on Hungary’s peace-oriented path,
or switch to the Brussels path filled with the horrors of war, austerity, and no-go zones?!?
If you want a softer, less emotional version or a sharper, campaign-style version, just say the word.
The arguments are on our side!
It is good to see that, despite the war taking place in our neighborhood, we made progress in 2025. What once was only a dream has now become something we take for granted.
The family tax benefits coming into force from January, personal income tax exemption for mothers, various forms of support, and the 14th month pension all provide a guarantee that we can look toward 2026 with optimism.
“I recently came across a survey about a district in Buda. There were three questions listed next to each other. One asked how you see things going in your district: how things are now, where they are heading, whether prospects will be better or worse than they are today. Another asked the same about your personal life: how things are going for you personally, what you expect, whether things will get better or not. And the third asked about the country as a whole.
What the survey showed was this: in people’s personal lives, everything is great — even better than before — and their prospects are good. In their own district, where they live and what they experience directly, things are better and they expect good things ahead. But when it comes to the country — well, that’s a tragedy.
So I think this is the really big danger: that people no longer want to believe their own eyes.
Because if you ask someone and say, let’s take a look at how things were 15 years ago — how many days they could go on vacation, what their job was like, how much they earned, how much they had to pay for their children or how much support they received, whether school textbooks or meals were provided for the children — if you put all this down on a sheet of graph paper, weighing the pros and cons, if voting worked this way, then I think our list of arguments would certainly be much longer than the list of counterarguments.”
“In their personal life everything is great… in their district things are better… but the country? That’s a tragedy.”
👉 “People no longer want to believe their own eyes.”
🎯 Purpose:
System-level criticism is presented not as reality, but as misperception.
This sentence is the key:
“This is the huge danger.”
What does she call dangerous?
👉 But the fact that citizens think critically.
This is classic gaslighting:
“If we took a sheet of graph paper and listed pros and cons…”
This is a very common technique:
“Our list of arguments would certainly be much longer.”
🎯 The trick:
Appearance of rational debate → non-verifiable conclusion
No data
No metrics
No actual list
Just self-validation.
“Let’s look at how things were 15 years ago…”
This is not a structured comparison.
It is an emotional nostalgia frame.
What is conveniently left out:
👉 Only what sounds good in messaging remains.
Implicit claim:
“If your personal life is going well, you have no right to say the country is doing badly.”
This leads to:
Because it:
Instead, it pathologizes dissatisfaction.
This is no longer governance — it is:
reality management
This speech:
👉 It tries to convince you not to trust your own experience.
English subtitles available — turn on CC
The video explains how Moscow showcases extreme wealth and festive luxury during Christmas, while the rest of Russia — even large cities like St. Petersburg — gets minimal or embarrassing decorations. This has sparked an online trend where people outside Moscow mock their own poor holiday displays in comparison.
Key points:
➡️ Conclusion:
The decorations are not about Christmas — they are about maintaining the image of a rich, “successful” state, while hiding domestic decline.
| Technique | Russia (from video) | Németh Balázs in Hungary | Why they match |
|---|---|---|---|
| Showcase illusion of prosperity | Moscow as a “rich country” showroom | “Magyarország Európa egyik legbiztonságosabb / legjobb helye” | Creates a fantasy reality |
| Deflect attention from crisis | Decorations hide war & poverty | “Brüsszel háborúba taszít, mi a béke pártján” | External enemy → no accountability |
| Two realities | Capital vs. provinces | Budapest = propaganda stage, rural areas neglected | Centralized power maintains control |
| Fear-based contrast | “Europe is dying” | “Nyugat-Európa veszélyes, mi vagyunk az utolsó békés ország” | Simplifies world into good vs evil |
| Victim narrative | “The West attacks Russia” | “Brüsszel és migránsok fenyegetik Magyarországot” | Emotional mobilization |
| Hide power concentration | Moscow gets everything | Orbán-rendszer → elite gazdagodik | Public pacified through symbolic gifts |
| Symbolic freebies | Decorations instead of real policy | Zoo tickets, rezsiutalvány, nyugdíjas belépők | Cheap populism instead of structural reform |
Both regimes manufacture a “happy illusion” to cover real decline.
Decorations in Moscow ⇆ propaganda posts in Hungary
→ Diversions from systemic problems
Németh Balázs = Hungarian version of the Kremlin’s PR style:
“Look at how wonderful everything is here —
ignore what’s actually happening.”
‼️ Let’s be fair!
📈 Between 2019 and 2025, the local business tax (HIPA) of Budapest’s 2nd district — as I also showed in my previous post — has risen from 7 billion forints to nearly 12.5 billion forints, thanks to the government’s programs and development policies. That is an increase of about 5.5 billion forints.
📣 During this period, not only did HIPA increase significantly, but the state’s operational funding also nearly doubled: from 3.7 billion to 6.4 billion forints.
📊 If we put everything together, the district now has 2.7 billion forints more in its pocket — a 34% increase compared to 2019.
Instead of misleading people, let’s provide clarity — instead of stirring up emotions, let’s share accurate information!
📌 Fact-check: Do the numbers reflect reality?
Nominal increase:
➡️ 12.68 − 7.09 = +5.59 billion HUF
→ Correct on paper.
BUT: Between 2019–2025, inflation in Hungary is around 63%.
Inflation-adjusted 2025 value:
7.09 × 1.63 = ≈11.55 billion HUF
Real increase:
12.68 − 11.55 = ≈1.13 billion HUF
👉 Meaning: out of the “5.6 billion increase,”
4.5 billion was eaten up entirely by inflation.
Only ~1.1 billion HUF is actual net improvement over 6 years.
This may be technically true, but:
❗The government simultaneously took away major revenue streams from the municipalities:
→ vehicle tax: 100% taken by the state
→ parking revenues: redirected / removed
→ solidarity contribution: skyrocketed
For District II specifically:
Solidarity tax
That is +3.45 billion HUF taken away from the district.
So if we “add everything up” as he claims:
➡️ −2.32 billion HUF real budget deterioration
This is not +2.7 billion,
this is −2.3 billion HUF in reality.
🎯 In simple, communicable terms
The Minister completely ignores the 63% inflation and hides the massive revenue withdrawals.
District II is not richer — it is over 2 billion HUF poorer in real value than in 2019.
The author describes the beginning of 2026 as a moment of national and spiritual unity, invoking the Hungarian and Székely anthems. She argues that Hungary is entering a decisive year in which “normality-oriented” people (a rebranded version of the political right) must guide the nation toward “sobriety.”
She presents herself as a victim of extreme online hostility, claiming that political opponents wish imprisonment, unemployment, harm to her child, and even violent death upon her. She defines her “crime” as thinking differently and publicly expressing those views under her real name while being paid for her professional work.
From this, she concludes that her opponents are not interested in better governance, infrastructure, or healthcare, but in revenge, violence, and turning Hungarians against Hungarians. She characterizes them as “communists,” “Lenin boys,” and a violent mob incapable of dialogue.
She then pivots to the war in Ukraine, arguing that critics who prioritize economic issues over the war are ignoring reality. She portrays EU leaders as irrationally hostile to peace and complicit in prolonging the conflict by supporting President Zelenskyy, whom she accuses of forcibly sending men to the front.
Finally, she claims that her opponents desire a future where state power is used for revenge, intimidation, and repression, drawing a historical parallel to 1919. The text ends with a call to defeat “the communists” again, asserting that her side represents peace, prosperity, and national survival.
National anthems, faith, and the “unbreakable soul” are used to create a moralized national space.
Effect:
Disagreement is implicitly framed as betrayal of the nation rather than political difference.
“Right-wing” is rebranded as “normality-oriented.”
Effect:
Political alignment becomes a question of sanity and morality.
Opponents are, by definition, abnormal.
Real or alleged online abuse is used to establish total moral innocence.
Effect:
Any criticism can be dismissed as harassment or persecution rather than legitimate disagreement.
Opponents are labeled:
Effect:
They are stripped of legitimate political motivation and portrayed as existential enemies.
This is not critique, but moral annihilation.
The text explicitly states that opponents do not want better governance or living standards.
Effect:
No rational debate is possible, because the other side is declared fundamentally evil.
The war in Ukraine is used to subordinate all domestic concerns.
Economic decline, corruption, and governance failures are reframed as irrelevant compared to war.
Effect:
Domestic accountability is neutralized through permanent emergency logic.
The author claims that if her opponents gain power, violence and repression will inevitably follow.
Effect:
Elections are framed as survival events, not democratic choices.
Modern political opponents are equated with historical perpetrators of terror.
Effect:
Voting against the author’s side is morally equated with enabling historical atrocities.
This is emotional blackmail, not history.
The author’s side is presented as:
Opponents must be “defeated again.”
Effect:
Politics becomes a moral crusade, not a pluralistic system.
This text is:
It is:
The purpose of this text is not to persuade through facts or arguments, but to construct a moral battlefield in which political opponents are portrayed as violent, illegitimate enemies of the nation, thereby justifying permanent fear, loyalty, and exclusion.The author describes the beginning of 2026 as a moment of national and spiritual unity, invoking the Hungarian and Székely anthems. She argues that Hungary is entering a decisive year in which “normality-oriented” people (a rebranded version of the political right) must guide the nation toward “sobriety.”
She presents herself as a victim of extreme online hostility, claiming that political opponents wish imprisonment, unemployment, harm to her child, and even violent death upon her. She defines her “crime” as thinking differently and publicly expressing those views under her real name while being paid for her professional work.
From this, she concludes that her opponents are not interested in better governance, infrastructure, or healthcare, but in revenge, violence, and turning Hungarians against Hungarians. She characterizes them as “communists,” “Lenin boys,” and a violent mob incapable of dialogue.
She then pivots to the war in Ukraine, arguing that critics who prioritize economic issues over the war are ignoring reality. She portrays EU leaders as irrationally hostile to peace and complicit in prolonging the conflict by supporting President Zelenskyy, whom she accuses of forcibly sending men to the front.
Finally, she claims that her opponents desire a future where state power is used for revenge, intimidation, and repression, drawing a historical parallel to 1919. The text ends with a call to defeat “the communists” again, asserting that her side represents peace, prosperity, and national survival.
The purpose of this text is not to persuade through facts or arguments, but to construct a moral battlefield in which political opponents are portrayed as violent, illegitimate enemies of the nation, thereby justifying permanent fear, loyalty, and exclusion.
Hungary is one of the safest countries in Europe 🇭🇺
This was proven once again on New Year’s Eve! 🎆
“One more important remark about last night’s parties: speaking as a twice-over father of daughters, right now in Europe, Hungary — and within that, if we look at capital cities — Budapest is the place where fathers of daughters can feel their daughters are the safest when they go out at night, even on New Year’s Eve. Fortunately, nothing happened, unlike in the major cities of Western Europe. This is the difference — this is why the Patriot Government must continue.”
1️⃣ Emotional blackmail: the “father of daughters” role
“As a twice-over father of daughters…”
Technique: invoking personal identity
Effect: those who disagree “don’t care about children”
Reality: the speaker isn’t providing data — he’s demanding emotional credibility
👉 Not policy — manipulation of parental fears
2️⃣ Superlative claim with zero data
“In Europe, Hungary… Budapest is the safest place for girls”
❌ no statistics
❌ no sources
❌ no definition of “safety”
👉 This is not a factual statement — it’s political myth-making
3️⃣ False comparison: “Western Europe” as a vague threat
“Not like in Western European big cities…”
No city named
No specific incident
No context
👉 Collective fearmongering, not comparative analysis
4️⃣ “Nothing happened” as proof?
“Fortunately, nothing happened”
One night ≠ trend
Luck ≠ system
Unreported cases ≠ zero cases
👉 Classic anecdotal fallacy
5️⃣ Political conclusion that doesn’t follow
“That’s why the Patriot Government must continue.”
No causal chain
No alternative examined
No verifiable link
👉 Emotional experience → coerced political loyalty
🧠 Summary — What is actually happening?
| Element | What it looks like | What it really is |
|---|---|---|
| Parental role | Caring | Emotional blackmail |
| Safety | Fact | Unproven claim |
| “The West” | Comparison | Fear narrative |
| Politics | Logical inference | Loyalty enforcement |
⚠️ Key insight
“Our daughters’ safety” becomes a political weapon when it is used without evidence.