Urban development that never happened – a fairy tale written by Karácsony Gergely.

Karácsony Gergely didn’t just receive an award this time for his enthusiasm for rainbow causes, but for something he simply did not accomplish.

Reclaiming public spaces – does the mayor mean that today you can’t even sit down in a square because of the homelessness situation?

Digital development of transport – maybe it worked virtually, but certainly not in reality. Traffic jams, potholes, air pollution, and such dirt that tourists have voted Budapest the dirtiest city in Europe.

Instead of boasting about fake awards, it would be time for the mayor to finally start working for the people of Budapest!

---

Now let’s read a fairy tale together, titled “The development that never was.”

Once upon a time, according to the jury’s evaluation, one of Budapest’s greatest strengths was its ability to think in systems: the integration of physical and digital transport networks, the reclaiming of public spaces, and the restoration of the natural environment all appearing simultaneously in its developments. So wrote Karácsony Gergely.

But this time, Karácsony Gergely didn’t receive an award for a “gender parade,” but for something he quite simply did not do at all.

Reclaiming public spaces – what does the mayor mean by that? Perhaps that nowadays you can’t sit down in a square because they are full of homeless people?

Digital development of transport – maybe it has improved digitally, but in reality, it certainly hasn’t. The roads are full of potholes, people spend hours stuck in traffic while breathing in exhaust fumes.

The city is so dirty that, shamefully, tourists have voted Budapest the dirtiest city in Europe.

I don’t know what Karácsony Gergely deserves for this—but it’s certainly not an award.

🧠 Quick overview

👉 Main narrative:

“Karácsony Gergely = incompetent + lying + has done nothing”
“Award = fake + ridiculous”
“Budapest = deteriorating, unlivable city”

👉 Hidden formula:
delegitimization + mockery + fear + exaggeration → rejection

---

🔍 Influence techniques

1️⃣ Mockery and ridicule (framing)

👉 “a fairy tale written by Karácsony Gergely”
👉 “bragging about fake awards”

Technique: discrediting through humor / cynicism
Goal: don’t take it seriously → undermine credibility from the start
Effect: the reader doesn’t analyze, but laughs

➡️ Very powerful because it doesn’t argue → it labels

---

2️⃣ Total denial of performance (nullification)

👉 “something he simply did not do”
👉 “did not do at all”

Technique: denial of any achievement (black-and-white framing)
Goal: remove nuance → everything = failure
Effect: distorted reality (no partial successes allowed)

➡️ Classic: what matters is not what happened, but that “nothing happened”

---

3️⃣ Rhetorical questions → implied answers

👉 “does he mean…?”
👉 “what does the mayor mean?”

Technique: leading questions
Goal: make it seem like the reader reaches the conclusion themselves
Effect: internal reinforcement → “I think the same”

➡️ In reality, it doesn’t ask → it asserts

---

4️⃣ Bundling negative phenomena

👉 “homelessness”
👉 “traffic jams, potholes”
👉 “air pollution”
👉 “dirt”

Technique: stacking problems
Goal: tie all negatives to one person
Effect: overload → “everything is bad at once”

➡️ This is not analysis, but emotional pressure

---

5️⃣ Unproven claims presented as facts

👉 “the dirtiest city in Europe”
👉 “tourists voted it so”

Technique: imitation of certainty
Goal: prevent questioning
Effect: illusion of credibility

➡️ No source → still sounds like a fact

---

6️⃣ Strawman (distortion)

👉 “maybe digitally it worked, but in reality it didn’t”

Technique: simplification + distortion
Goal: make complex developments look ridiculous
Effect: original claims become caricatures

---

7️⃣ Indirect construction of an enemy

👉 “you can’t sit down because of homeless people”

Technique: projecting social tension onto a politician
Goal: channel frustration → attach it to a person
Effect: scapegoating

---

8️⃣ Repetition (reinforcement)

Same patterns repeated:

• “did nothing”
• “dirt”
• “chaos”

Technique: repetition = increased sense of truth
Goal: fixation
Effect: familiar → more believable

---

9️⃣ Moral judgment at the end

👉 “he certainly does not deserve an award”

Technique: closed judgment
Goal: leave no room for doubt
Effect: no debate → final conclusion

---

⚠️ Why it feels like propaganda

Because the text:

• does not weigh
• does not prove
• does not nuance
• but aims to trigger an emotional reaction

👉 main tools:

• mockery
• exaggeration
• repetition
• negative imagery
• “everything is bad” narrative

---

🧩 Short summary

This text does not analyze urban development, but:

👉 destroys character
👉 simplifies reality
👉 generates emotion (anger, disgust)

➡️ Classic political formula:
ridicule + problem stacking + certainty → rejection

❗ Share this so Tisza supporters also face the truth! The Tisza “agent scandal” has escalated into a Ukrainian espionage scandal.

The report of the National Security Committee clearly states: the Tisza Party’s IT specialists were not only working for them – but also for Ukrainians.

Regular contact with the Ukrainian embassy in Budapest.
Connections with foreign intelligence services.
Cooperation with hacker groups.
Attempts to acquire spyware and military-grade equipment.

This goes far beyond political debate – it is a serious national security issue.

👉 One of those involved had previously been investigated for blackmail and cybercrime.
The other was directed by a foreign intelligence operative and built connections in Ukraine.
They visited the Ukrainian embassy in Budapest multiple times.
They communicated through encrypted channels.
Foreign actors were seeking Hungarian domestic political information.

This is unacceptable!

Hungary’s future cannot be a plaything of foreign interests.
Decisions about us must not be made in Ukraine, in Brussels, or in intelligence backroom deals.

🇭🇺 Hungarians have the right to security.
🇭🇺 Hungarians have the right to sovereignty.

Anyone who relies on people with such connections is putting the country at risk.

The stakes of the election are clear: order, security, and national sovereignty – or chaos and foreign influence.

Share this video so the truth reaches all Tisza supporters. According to the National Security Committee, the Tisza Party’s IT specialists were not only working for the party, but astonishingly also for Ukrainians. There was regular cooperation with the Ukrainian embassy in Budapest, foreign intelligence services, and hacker groups. They even planned to acquire spyware and military-grade equipment.

This is far more than a simple political debate – it is a serious national security issue for every Hungarian.

One of those involved had already been under investigation for blackmail and cybercrime. The other was directed by a foreign intelligence operative, alongside the connections built in Ukraine.

So let’s make it clear: it is unacceptable that foreign actors attempted to gain access to Hungarian domestic political information with the help of the Tisza Party. That is why it is important that…

---

1️⃣ Unproven or unverifiable claims are presented as facts

The text doesn’t say “it was alleged,” “reportedly,” or “according to a report.”
It presents everything as if it were already fully proven:

• “Ukrainian spy scandal”
• “foreign intelligence connections”
• “cooperation with hacker groups”
• “spyware and military equipment”

This creates disgust because it leaves no room for thinking.
The text judges first, and only then suggests “facts.”

Technique: pre-made judgment + imitation of certainty
Goal: don’t evaluate—react immediately with outrage
Effect: mental pressure, internal resistance, “this is too much” feeling

---

2️⃣ Shock stacking

It throws in the strongest possible words one after another:

• Ukrainians
• intelligence services
• hackers
• spyware
• military technology
• blackmail
• foreign control
• domestic political data

This is no longer a simple political message—it’s a shock cocktail.

Technique: information overload + threat stacking
Goal: prevent the reader from examining individual claims
Effect: anxiety, disgust, paralysis, even nausea

---

3️⃣ It merges individuals, a party, and national collapse into one narrative

The logic roughly becomes:

two individuals with suspicious ties → the entire Tisza party is suspicious → foreign influence → Hungary is in danger

This is a classic propaganda leap.

Technique: guilt transfer / collective responsibility
Goal: turn a specific case into a stigma for an entire political group
Effect: in the reader’s mind, “Tisza” becomes associated with “treason” and “espionage”

---

4️⃣ It doesn’t offer debate—it creates moral panic

The text doesn’t say “this should be investigated,” but instead:

• “this is unacceptable”
• “it puts the country at risk”
• “the stakes of the election are clear”
• “order and security – or chaos and foreign influence”

So the whole issue becomes an existential choice.

Technique: false dilemma
Goal: leave only two options in the reader’s mind
Effect: the gray zone disappears—everything becomes black and white

---

5️⃣ It uses the word “truth” for emotional pressure

“Share this so the truth reaches everyone.”

This is strong manipulation, because anyone who doesn’t share it is implied to be:

• against the truth
• covering it up
• indifferent to national security

Technique: moral pressure + forced sharing
Goal: turn the reader into a free distributor
Effect: guilt + tribal mobilization

---

6️⃣ It appropriates the nation

“The Hungarian people have the right to security.”
“The Hungarian people have the right to sovereignty.”

These statements sound valid on their own, but here they are framed so that the reader subconsciously links them to one political side.

Technique: national appropriation
Goal: if you’re with us = patriot; if not = suspicious
Effect: illusion of moral superiority

---

7️⃣ The whole text functions like an indictment

Its rhythm is built like this:

• short, punchy statements
• stacked accusations
• little nuance
• many exclamations
• ends with a call to action

This is not information—it’s an emotion-driven accusatory speech.

Technique: prosecutorial tone
Goal: make the reader react like a juror, not a citizen
Effect: the brain stops evaluating and starts judging

---

8️⃣ You feel physically bad because it triggers cognitive disgust

The text is simultaneously:

• too certain
• too severe
• too much
• too one-sided

This creates a sense that something is off, even if you can’t immediately explain why.
Many people literally experience this as nausea or “cringe.”

Technique: exaggerated threat framing
Effect: psychological repulsion

---

In short, the hidden formula:

fear + treason + foreign actors + intelligence services + nation
= vote for us, or there will be consequences

---

That’s why it feels so bad to read.
Not because it contains “strong truth,” but because it applies maximum emotional pressure to push a political conclusion.

The Tisza espionage scandal falls into the most serious category of treason.
It is absolutely astonishing that a Hungarian journalist would go so far as to have their own country’s foreign minister wiretapped. The same Szabolcs Panyi, who himself handed over Péter Szijjártó’s phone number to foreign intelligence services, also spoke about being on very good terms with Anita Orbán, one of the key figures of TISZA.

But there is more. Yesterday it also emerged that even Péter Magyar’s IT specialists were trained in Ukraine, and they regularly visit the Ukrainian embassy.
And what does Péter Magyar do after all this? He stays silent.
He does not say a single word about the entire case. He is not willing to condemn espionage that poses a national security risk—just as he remained silent about the oil blockade.

In April, we must choose a responsible government and its experienced leader, one that can resist all agents and guarantee the security of our country. That is why Fidesz is the safe choice!

The Ukrainians are already deeply involved in the Tisza campaign. I don’t know who has heard the latest news. An absolutely astonishing national security scandal has erupted in recent days. I see many of you nodding. For those who may not have heard, in a nutshell: Szabolcs Panyi, a pro-Tisza journalist often described as aligned with Soros, effectively handed over the Hungarian foreign minister’s phone number to foreign intelligence services. What is this, if not the most blatant treason? Handing over your country’s information and security to another country’s services? It is unbelievable.

And what else does Szabolcs Panyi talk about in this leaked audio? That Anita Orbán—who, somehow, is a very close friend of his and with whom he has worked for a long time—is Péter Magyar’s candidate for foreign minister. And Anita Orbán allegedly told him that, if a Tisza government came to power, this journalist would be allowed to look into all kinds of files, documents—everything. Total madness.

In fact, Panyi Szabolcs even went so far as to say that Anita Orbán would consult him—Mr. Panyi—on who should be dismissed from the ministries and who should be retained in order to ensure that the new setup, the new government, would be suitably pro-Ukrainian.

🧠 Quick Overview

👉 Main narrative:

“Tisza = treason + espionage + Ukrainian influence”
“The opposition = national security threat”
“Fidesz = protection, security, the only solution”

👉 Hidden formula:

treason + fear + foreign actors + scandal + leader = vote for us

---

🔍 Influence techniques

1️⃣ Serious accusations without evidence (presented as facts)

👉 “the most serious form of treason”
👉 “gave the phone number to foreign intelligence services”

Technique:
➡️ claim presented as fact

Goal:
👉 don’t question it, just accept it

Effect:
👉 moral shock → “if this is true, everything is over”

---

2️⃣ Labeling + character assassination

👉 “Soros-backed pro-Tisza journalist”
👉 “agent”

Technique:
➡️ stigmatization / labeling

Goal:
👉 discredit the person without proving anything

Effect:
👉 you reject the person instead of examining facts

---

3️⃣ False equivalence (journalism = espionage)

👉 “journalist → has someone wiretapped → traitor”

Technique:
➡️ category conflation

Reality:
👉 gathering information ≠ intelligence operation

Goal:
👉 criminalize normal journalistic work

---

4️⃣ Guilt by association

👉 “Panyi → Orbán Anita → Péter Magyar → Ukraine”

Technique:
➡️ chaining

Goal:
👉 if one link is “bad,” then everyone is “bad”

Effect:
👉 an entire network appears guilty without proof

---

5️⃣ Invoking a foreign enemy

👉 “Ukrainians in the campaign”
👉 “foreign intelligence services”
👉 “visiting the embassy”

Technique:
➡️ external threat framing

Goal:
👉 trigger national defensive reflex

Effect:
👉 feeling that “the country is under attack”

---

6️⃣ Information overload (shock stacking)

In one text:

• espionage
• treason
• Ukrainian links
• wiretapping
• government purges

Technique:
➡️ shock + overload

Goal:
👉 prevent analytical thinking → everything just feels “very serious”

---

7️⃣ Unverified storytelling (“we heard”, “it turned out”)

👉 “it was revealed yesterday”
👉 “leaked recording”
👉 “he said that…”

Technique:
➡️ rumor presented as fact

Goal:
👉 create illusion of credibility

Effect:
👉 feels like evidence exists (but it’s not shown)

---

8️⃣ Demonization of the opponent

👉 “the Ukrainians are neck-deep in it”
👉 “treason”

Technique:
➡️ moral demonization

Goal:
👉 turn opponent into a threat, not just a rival

---

9️⃣ Silence = guilt

👉 “he is silent → therefore guilty”

Technique:
➡️ false inference

Reality:
👉 silence can have many reasons

Goal:
👉 whatever they do → it looks bad

---

🔟 False dilemma (only one solution)

👉 “that’s why Fidesz is the safe choice”

Technique:
➡️ no alternative framing

Goal:
👉 force decision based on fear

---

🧠 What’s the real trick here?

This text is not trying to prove anything — it’s trying to:

👉 trigger emotions

• shock
• anger
• fear
• sense of betrayal

➡️ once these are activated:

👉 critical thinking shuts down

---

⚠️ Key insight (what you’re sensing correctly)

👉 The whole narrative is built on:

• connections
• not evidence
• emotional escalation

👉 That’s why it feels like:

“this is too much / over the top”

Because it is.

---

💡 In short (takeaway)

👉 This is a classic campaign message:

• fear-mongering
• enemy construction
• betrayal narrative
• foreign interference
• a single “savior”

➡️ = political mobilization

We believe in the power of love and unity!
We understand that, due to the heightened atmosphere of the campaign, many people hold different views, but we must all agree on one thing: you cannot build either a community or a country on hatred.

We see that the other side is full of hostility, but we must not give up our values.
We are one nation, we are building our country together, and we will continue to live together after April as well.
In 18 days, the Hungarian people will defeat hatred with common sense and cast their votes for the safe choice.

There is such immeasurable hatred within us—yes, that’s true. Directed toward the Prime Minister, as some put it: “it doesn’t matter who, just not Orbán.” That’s what they say. Yes—even with the devil, if necessary. But that’s because they believe things will be better no matter what…

No—they simply cannot imagine what it would be like if things turned out badly. There is such aggression in them, and, how should I put it, such communist methods. There is no limit.

We are not only fighting for our own personal lives to be better, but for this country. We are fighting for them as well, because in the end, we are still one nation. It doesn’t matter who leans which way in the voting booth.

Because if they were to win, it would lead to something like proletarian-style purges and even “lamp-post justice,” more or less.

🧠 Core Narrative:

• We = love, unity, nation, rationality
• They = hatred, aggression, communist methods, destruction
• The election = love vs. hatred
• Fidesz/Orbán = stability, responsibility, protector of the nation
• Opposition = irrational, angry, dangerous crowd

Hidden formula:

moral superiority + enemy construction + fear + national appropriation = political mobilization

---

🔍 Influence Techniques

1️⃣ Moral appropriation

Excerpt:

“We believe in the power of love and unity!”
“…you cannot build a community or a country on hatred.”

Technique:

moral framing / claiming moral superiority

Goal:

To present their side as representing love, peace, and morality.

Effect:

In the reader’s mind:

• those with them = good people
• those against them = on the side of hatred

➡️ This is highly effective because it turns politics into a moral judgment, not a debate.

---

2️⃣ “We are peaceful” – while demonizing the other side

Excerpt:

“We see that the other side is only snarling…”

Technique:

apparent calmness + demeaning the opponent

Goal:

To make their side seem civilized and composed, while portraying the opponent as primitive and hateful.

Effect:

No need to prove anything—just use emotionally loaded words:

• snarling
• hateful
• aggressive

➡️ This is negative labeling, not evidence.

---

3️⃣ Appropriation of the nation

Excerpt:

“We are one nation, building our country together…”
“We fight for this homeland… we fight for them as well…”

Technique:

patriotic appropriation / nation = us

Goal:

To equate their political side with the nation itself.

Effect:

Those who disagree are no longer just political opponents, but are framed as people who:

• stand against the nation
• do not build the country
• are not responsible members of the community

➡️ Classic propaganda: the party = the nation, the opponent = threat to national unity.

---

4️⃣ False unity rhetoric

Excerpt:

“We are one nation…”
“…we will live together after April as well!”

Technique:

illusion of unity

Goal:

To appear conciliatory, while consistently portraying the other side as the enemy.

Effect:

On the surface it sounds moderate, but the real message is:

• we are the normal Hungarians
• you are the hateful, dangerous group
• but still “one nation” with us

➡️ This is a fake unity message, not real reconciliation—it’s a top-down moral judgment.

---

5️⃣ Turning the election into a moral panic

Excerpt:

“In 18 days, Hungarians will defeat hatred with common sense…”

Technique:

moralization of voting / monopolizing “common sense”

Goal:

To frame voting for their side as an act of rationality and morality.

Effect:

Anyone voting differently is:

• irrational
• supporting hatred
• on the wrong side

➡️ This shifts the frame from policy debate to:
one side = common sense, the other = hatred

---

6️⃣ Simplifying the opponent’s motivations

Excerpt:

“It doesn’t matter who, just not Orbán…”
“even with the devil if needed”

Technique:

straw man / distortion of the opponent

Goal:

To portray Orbán critics as having no principles or positive goals—only blind hatred.

Effect:

All real reasons for opposition disappear:

• corruption
• economic issues
• institutional decline
• public services
• political style

➡️ Replaced with:
“they just hate.”

---

7️⃣ Fear-based future framing

Excerpt:

“They cannot imagine what it will be like if it turns bad.”
“…if they were to win.”

Technique:

vague catastrophe narrative

Goal:

To mobilize voters through fear rather than hope.

Effect:

Instead of comparing programs, it suggests:

• things will go wrong
• danger will come
• collapse will happen
• aggression will rise

➡️ This works because vague threats let people project their own fears.

“The Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party takes a strong stance on drugs: we support the legalization of cannabis.”

Across Europe, drug use and narcotics are a source of problems, yet the Dog Party and its representatives repeatedly advocate legalization.
Dávid Nagy and his colleagues regularly downplay the short- and long-term risks of marijuana use; their candidate in Csepel spoke about this again recently.

This is something we do not even want to hear about, because we will never allow drugs to consume our children’s future.
In Hungary, there is zero tolerance when it comes to drugs, and as long as the national government remains in power, this will not change. That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

Do you think young people need drug legalization? I definitely don’t. There are already serious problems in Europe, and unfortunately drug use is also increasing in Hungary. Yet it seems that supporters of the Dog Party think differently. This is not the first time they have argued in favor of legalization, claiming that cannabis is not dangerous at all, thereby relativizing the risks of marijuana use.

At the recent debate of candidates in Csepel—where, incidentally, only the Tisza candidate was absent—their candidate once again spoke in favor of marijuana use. Here, the Dog Party clearly represents a strong position on drug legalization: “we support the legalization of cannabis.” This would essentially mean that even the most disadvantaged regions and poorest social groups could gain access to quality marijuana.

We, however, want to continue protecting our children from drugs. We believe this is harmful, and that zero tolerance is the only acceptable approach when it comes to drugs.

🧠 Quick snapshot

👉 Main narrative:

“Kutyapárt = drugs = danger to children”
“Legalization = social decline”
“Fidesz = protection, zero tolerance”

👉 Underlying formula:

drugs + children + fear + moral panic → “only we can protect you”

---

🔍 Influence techniques

1️⃣ Creating moral panic (involving children)

👉 “drugs will consume our children’s future”

Technique: emotional escalation + invoking children
Goal: immediate emotional reaction (fear, anger)
Effect: rational debate disappears

➡️ Classic move:
not a policy issue → “child protection”

---

2️⃣ Strawman argument (distortion)

👉 “according to them, it’s not dangerous at all”

Technique: oversimplifying / distorting the opposing position
Goal: make it easier to attack
Effect: avoids engaging with real arguments

➡️ Reality:
legalization ≠ “not dangerous”

---

3️⃣ Black-and-white thinking (false dilemma)

👉 “zero tolerance is the only acceptable option”

Technique: false dilemma
Goal: exclude all middle-ground solutions
Effect: no nuance (e.g. regulation, prevention)

➡️ Yet alternatives exist:

• decriminalization
• regulated market
• public health approach

---

4️⃣ Fear through generalization

👉 “it’s a problem across all of Europe”

Technique: overgeneralization
Goal: amplify perceived threat
Effect: everything seems to be “going wrong”

➡️ Ignores differences in:

• countries
• policy models
• outcomes

---

5️⃣ Conflation (drugs = all drugs)

👉 “drug and narcotic use” → marijuana

Technique: category conflation
Goal: create stronger negative associations
Effect: marijuana = same level as hard drugs

---

6️⃣ Enemy construction + discrediting

👉 “Kutyapárt supporters trivialize it”
👉 “not for the first time”

Technique: delegitimization + repetition
Goal: make them seem unserious
Effect: character attack

---

7️⃣ “We will protect you” (protector framing)

👉 “we want to protect our children”
👉 “zero tolerance will remain”

Technique: savior / protector role
Goal: create a sense of safety → political support
Effect: Fidesz = the only protection

---

8️⃣ Linking it to poverty (subtle framing)

👉 “the poorest groups would gain access”

Technique: fear + social stigma
Goal: create a negative future image
Effect: “this would make things worse”

➡️ Implicit message:
poor people + drugs = danger

---

9️⃣ Repetition (very important)

👉 “not the first time”
👉 “again”
👉 “regularly”

Technique: repetition = illusion of truth
Goal: make it stick
Effect: feels true even without evidence

---

🧩 Deeper communication logic

This text is not really about drugs.

👉 It’s about:

• fear (children, future)
• moral superiority (“we protect”)
• an enemy (Kutyapárt = irresponsible)
• a simplified worldview (good vs bad)

👉 Classic formula:

complex policy issue → moral panic → political choice

---

⚖️ What’s missing (very important)

The text does not talk about:

• regulatory models (e.g. Portugal)
• public health approaches
• reducing the black market
• tax revenue
• control mechanisms

➡️ Only one frame remains:
“legalization = danger”

---

🧠 Summary

This is textbook propaganda:

👉 Main tools:

• fear (children)
• strawman (distorted opponent)
• false dilemma (only zero tolerance)
• category conflation
• savior narrative

👉 Goal:

not to help you understand the issue,
but to make you react emotionally and pick a side