I graduated from high school in 2017.
Since 2018, I’ve been working continuously—while attending university as well, for a while in a 20-hour position, then from 2020 onward in full-time employment without interruption.
For several years now, I’ve been working at two jobs simultaneously.
In addition, I have a husband, and we purchased our home together.
May God protect us from that so-called “expert government.”
As many of you may know, I am a young mother, almost 27 years old, with a two-year-old little boy. I own an apartment that I purchased with the help of a loan, I have several jobs, and I have many goals for the future that I want to achieve. I am a simple Hungarian citizen. No wealthy family background, no judicial connections, no circle of influential friends, no Rose Hill ties.
For me, one of the most important things is simply to be allowed to live — to have a government in Hungary that not only lets me live, but also gives me opportunities: so that if I am diligent, if I work, and if I have goals, I can actually achieve them.
It matters to me that a government does not restrict wherever it can, but instead creates opportunities for me to develop and move forward. That in small, everyday matters — such as utility bills or access to subsidized loans — it offers help, so that if I want to make use of those tools, I can, and through them I can progress in life.
At the same time, I also consider it extremely important that my child grows up in a safe country and is proud of where he comes from. Proud of his Hungarian identity, and proud to say that he is part of a country with more than a thousand years of history — and that one day he, too, can be a contributing member of this nation.
Now you might ask: why am I saying all of this?
Because it leads directly to the next point.
In the next video, András Schiffer speaks — and he is certainly not someone who could be accused of agreeing with Viktor Orbán, the right wing, or right-wing ideas on many issues. And yet, he sees certain situations very clearly. For example, that it is a terrible idea to place the fate of a country into the hands of people who know exactly how to organize a state to serve multinational corporations and foreign interests.
May God protect us from letting “expertise” rule the country.
I always say at moments like this that István Csurka once expressed a great truth: that “expertise” is an old Bolshevik trick. In reality, it is about disabling democratic decision-making — when we want to hand a country over to so-called experts and managers instead of the people.
🎭 1. The entry point: “a simple Hungarian mother” – credibility building
“I am a 27-year-old young mother… a simple Hungarian citizen…”
This is not a biography — it is a rhetorical shield.
What does it do?
It preemptively removes her from criticism.
“If you attack me, you attack a mother.”
The political claim is protected by emotional status.
This is the identification anchor:
“She is just like you. You are just like her.”
🧱 2. The classic “let me live” frame – the myth of negative freedom
“Don’t restrict me, create opportunities instead.”
It sounds good, but it is a false binary.
As if there were only two options:
🟢 “national government” = lets you live
🔴 “experts” = oppress you
In reality, every government restricts:
collects taxes,
regulates,
redistributes.
This is not about freedom — it is about loyalty:
“A good government is the one that supports me — as long as I don’t ask questions.”
⚡ 3. Utilities + loans = reward framing
“utility bills, subsidized loans”
This is not public policy, but conditional security:
“We help you if you stay with us.”
Support is not presented as a right, but as a granted favor.
This is classic patronage logic:
“It’s not owed — we give it.”
🇭🇺 4. Child + nation = emotional sanctuary
“be proud of being Hungarian… a thousand-year-old country”
Here, argumentation ends.
Anyone who challenges it → “endangers the child’s future”
Anyone who asks questions → “is not patriotic enough”
This is a moral shield, not an argument.
🎓 5. Bringing in András Schiffer – borrowing authority
“You can’t accuse him of supporting Orbán, YET…”
This is the “even the opponent agrees” trick.
👉 András Schiffer appears here not as a thinker, but as a prop.
What matters is not what he actually says, but that:
“he’s not Fidesz,”
“therefore objective,”
“therefore believe him.”
🧠 6. “Expert government” as an enemy image
“It’s a damn bad idea to entrust a country to experts.”
This is the true core of the speech.
Here, “expert” does not mean competence —
it means foreign, elite, alien interest.
And this leads to the key sentence.
☠️ 7. The Csurka quote – the revealing moment
“Expertise is a cheap Bolshevik trick.”
👉 István Csurka
This is brutally important, because it is a slip.
What does it really mean?
Professional decision-making is dangerous.
Measurement, data, analysis are dangerous.
The questioning citizen is dangerous.
This is no longer governance — it is the disabling of democracy:
“Don’t think. Leave it to us.”
🎯 8. The REAL message (summarized)
This speech is not about:
motherhood,
utilities,
nation,
security.
It is about this:
🔒 Do not oversee decisions.
🧠 Do not demand expertise.
🗳️ Do not practice democracy.
Because:
those who understand → ask questions
those who ask questions → are dangerous
Since the so-called “Tisza tax package” he keeps talking about does not exist — something that even the court has stated is not true — the only reasonable response is that if this person ever gets a job, they should be dismissed immediately. Persistent lying is not an opinion; it is incompetence.
What is the problem with the Tisza-style progressive taxation?
Let’s talk in the language of numbers, because this plan affects the wallet of every working person in Budapest.
In Budapest, the average gross salary is roughly 200,000 forints higher than the national average. Meanwhile, plans are leaking from the Tisza camp about introducing progressive taxation above 416,000 forints. This means it’s not about taxing the wealthy — it’s about automatically putting the middle class, especially in Budapest, into the crosshairs.
The real question is very simple: where would they pay for their promises from?
In any society, there are two options. Either you create opportunities through work, education, and development, so everyone earns more — or you take money away from those who have already built an existence for themselves and redistribute it. Left-wing economists (who are now appearing one after another behind Tisza) believe the second path should be followed.
If you want to redistribute more money, you inevitably have to take it from someone. And that “someone” will not be a narrow elite, but the working, urban middle class — just as it always was under left-liberal governments.
Such a tax system would hurt everyone, but it would hurt most where wages are higher, where there is accumulated wealth, and where a stable life has already been built. If this is introduced, it will appear first in the districts of Budapest, because that’s where there is more to tax. Simple math.
And real-world experience shows that even if more is taken from those who have, those who have nothing gain nothing. That’s how it was before 2010 as well. Despite a 36% personal income tax rate, the minimum wage was 70,000 forints, and one million fewer Hungarians were able to work than today.
The real dilemma is whether we want to live in a work-based society, or in a system where the more you work, the more is taken away from you.
We believe in the first solution: creating opportunities, low taxes, guaranteeing independent prosperity for everyone, while at the same time providing strong support for families and housing.
That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
The story of a Hungarian mother who “fled back home” from Germany because of migration and gender indoctrination.
This is why we must vote wisely.
The migration situation in Germany had become problematic. I no longer allowed my child to go into the city center, not even in broad daylight. This is a cautionary story for a new generation of voters, told by Erika, who grew up here, lived here, then moved to Germany—and eventually returned to Hungary. But why?
I had a teenage child, a daughter, whom I absolutely wanted to rescue from the educational environment and the migration-related changes we were exposed to. So a few years ago, we truly returned home to Hungary.
The migration situation in Germany was problematic. I no longer let her enter the city center even during the day, because public safety was nowhere near what it had been 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
In education, expectations around male and female roles have changed significantly, and I could not identify with that.
That is why we must pay attention to ensuring that all of Budapest—and North Pest as well—remains free from immigration.
🧠 Psychological Influence – What does this “extra interview” actually do to you?
This woman is not an expert, not a decision-maker, not a data source.
Yet she is framed as someone who has “personally encountered the danger.”
👉 Psychological effect:
The viewer does not feel persuaded, but rather:
“One of us is finally saying the truth.”
This triggers identification, not thinking.
The key element of the sentence is not migration, not gender — but the child.
“I had to rescue my teenage daughter…”
👉 This is a deliberate choice, because:
The viewer’s inner reaction:
This is emotional blackmail, not argumentation.
This phrase is not accidental.
👉 The goal:
There must be nothing concrete to verify.
Fear must remain floating, ungraspable.
This is what psychology calls diffuse anxiety induction.
“We fled back home from Germany.”
This is an extremely strong psychological word.
👉 Message to the viewer:
Anyone who would stay or question → irresponsible.
This shuts down thinking, because from “escape” there is no debate — only survival.
At the end, there is no question.
“That’s why we must vote wisely.”
👉 Psychological mechanism:
This is classic emotional steering:
fear → relief → obedience.
🎯 What is really happening?
This interview is not about the mother.
It is a role, used to:
📌 The real goal is not for you to believe.
📌 The real goal is for you to not dare to doubt.
The Government of Hungary is launching a National Petition to send a clear message to Brussels: WE WILL NOT PAY!
We will not pay for the Russian–Ukrainian war,
we will not pay for the operation of the Ukrainian state over the next ten years,
and we will not pay higher utility bills because of the war.
Somehow this ugly opposition math just doesn’t add up.
So how many opposition voters are there actually? And where exactly are those so-called “disappointed Fidesz voters”? 🤔🤔🤔
More on this in the latest episode of the Gyalogátkelő – podcast! Link in the comments 🙂
Wasn’t the story supposed to be that there already was an opposition base — about one and a half, or almost two million people — back in ’22? Depending on the multiplier, of course.
And then, on top of that, people started writing to me in the comments saying that another 400,000 new Tisza voters would show up and completely wipe out Fidesz.
Who are these people? The ones who were just born?
So now we have two million opposition voters, plus another 400,000 — that’s already 2.4 million. And then Momentum offered up its body, soul, and service, Dialogue (Párbeszéd) also volunteered, and I’ve just seen that Péter Jakab did as well — they all offered themselves to Tisza.
But then, logically, that would mean there should be, say, two million Tisza voters — and on top of that, I don’t know… I’ve heard figures like another one million opposition voters.
So how does the math work out when it comes to, for example, the DK?
Could it be that what’s really happening here is not that disappointed Fidesz voters are forming the base of the Tisza Party, but rather disappointed opposition voters?
Former DK voters, maybe? Former Momentum supporters?
This is not analysis — it’s guided doubt.
He doesn’t answer; he works with questions — and that is deliberate.
🎯 The goal
Not to help you understand the numbers, but to:
When he says:
“Somehow this ugly opposition math doesn’t add up”
👉 he doesn’t calculate,
👉 he doesn’t refute,
👉 he just creates a feeling.
💡 Message to the listener:
“Relax, these people are talking nonsense. You’re on the right side.”
This is cognitive reassurance, not analysis.
“So how many opposition voters are there now?”
This is not genuine curiosity.
It’s a rhetorical trap:
👉 The listener completes the thought themselves:
“They must be lying.”
This is projection: he lets you draw the conclusion — but he controls the direction.
When he gets to this:
“Maybe they’re not disappointed Fidesz voters, but disappointed opposition voters?”
💥 This is the psychological main strike.
What does it achieve?
✔ Protects Fidesz: “people aren’t leaving us”
✔ Devalues Tisza: “just recycled left-wing voters”
✔ Dismantles opposition hope: “they’re cannibalizing each other”
And all of this without ever saying:
“Fidesz is stable.”
Because it gives them exactly what they need:
📌 Deep-level message:
“Don’t worry.
There’s no breakthrough.
They’re just stirring the air.”
This is anxiety-reducing propaganda.
Dezse doesn’t calculate — he plants uncertainty.
He doesn’t debate — he undermines with questions.
His goal isn’t truth,
but to calm the Fidesz listener:
“There’s no danger. The opposition is just eating itself.”
❗️Brussels keeps coming forward with more and more demands: they want Hungary to pay for the war, to finance the operation of the Ukrainian state, and to pay the price of the war through higher utility bills as well.
The government is launching a National Petition so that together, clearly and unequivocally, we can send a message to Brussels: we will not pay!
We must take a firm stand on three key issues, because everyone’s opinion matters now:
1️⃣ We say NO to further financing of the Russian–Ukrainian war.
2️⃣ We say NO to making Hungary pay for the operation of the Ukrainian state over the next 10 years.
3️⃣ We say NO to raising utility prices due to the war.
Let us stand together for the interests of the Hungarian people!
Only Fidesz is the safe choice! 🇭🇺
This is what the Tisza supporters are like!
They pocket million-forint teacher salaries, don’t pay taxes, receive state scholarships, and yet relentlessly criticize the government. Müller Anna’s behavior is outrageous.
The Tisza challenger is a teacher—specifically a high school teacher—who, if I saw correctly, earns a salary in the millions. She is a mother of three, so she doesn’t even have to pay certain charges, she received the Köbüki scholarship—she grabbed that from the state as well—and yet she still claims that everything is wrong with education. It’s very strange to hear this.
As for the historically large wage increase, I’d say we’re not even halfway through it yet, since it will last until 2031. If we interrupt it now and start moving backward, that would be a major step back, because the goal is to value our teachers, to make the teaching profession attractive. And it is indeed very interesting when someone—precisely as a teacher—stands against this.
I said it correctly, didn’t I, that the average gross salary is above 900,000, meaning that one-million-forint salaries easily exist. That’s right. Moreover, we know exactly that if Tisza introduces its new tax structure—which has already been backed up in many places—then teachers will certainly earn at least 100,000 forints less, and many family benefits will be taken away from them.
🎭 1. Apparent message (surface)
The statement suggests that:
Therefore, what she says is “uncredible” and “outrageous.”
This is the shop window. On the surface, it talks about money and fairness.
🎯 2. The REAL function (unspoken)
This is not a policy debate, but an act of intimidation by example.
The real goals of the message are:
❌ To take away teachers’ right to speak
❌ To punish those who criticize from within
❌ To deter other teachers from expressing public opinions
Message to the others:
“If you earn well → stay silent.”
“If you receive anything → you have no right to criticize.”
This is enforced loyalty, not argument.
🧠 3. Psychological tricks used
1️⃣ Financial delegitimization
“Million-forint salary → no right to complain”
➡️ As if income buys silence.
A moral trap: if you earn well, shut up.
2️⃣ Benefits = obligation to remain silent
Scholarship, family support, wage increase → “you owe us.”
➡️ This is feudal logic, not democratic thinking.
3️⃣ Implanting fear about the future
“If Tisza comes, you’ll earn 100,000 less.”
➡️ Projected loss without evidence.
Classic: “if not us, it will be worse.”
4️⃣ Personal attack → silencing systemic critique
The focus is not on the state of education,
but on the person criticizing it.
➡️ This is ad hominem—avoiding the real debate.
🔥 4. The most important unspoken message
The real meaning is this:
“It doesn’t matter whether you’re right.
What matters is whether you’re loyal.”
This is not about teachers.
This is about every public servant.
🧩 5. What is conspicuously missing?
❓ A single concrete professional rebuttal
❓ A single data point about education quality
❓ A single response to the actual criticisms
Instead, we get:
🧠 One-sentence summary (ideal for a short video)
This is not a debate about education.
It’s a message to everyone:
if you receive anything from the state, you have no right to ask questions.
A good teacher loves children and their vocation.
The national curriculum can be rethought, but there is one thing we must never compromise on: we must fight against Hungary being led by a Tisza government whose nominee for education minister writes “Little Josephine” fairy tales.
In April, the only safe choice is Fidesz! 🇭🇺
The left-wing parties have already divided the turf: they want to keep North Pest in the hands of the Democratic Coalition.
That is why the Tisza Party has put forward an extremely weak candidate here. We must not allow this!
The Democratic Coalition is holding a post-New Year’s Eve event in North Pest. Their local representative, Balázs Barkóczi, managed to make everyone in the area laugh when he wrote on Facebook that he “demands a hospital for North Pest.”
This is the representative of the very party that, when it was in power, destroyed the healthcare system: they closed hospitals, drove doctors away, and introduced hospital visit fees. Since 2010, the civic government has had to gather everything from the ruins and rebuild it anew. That is why the Democratic Coalition has no place in North Pest either.
The text claims that:
This is the shop window.
This is not about local issues at all, but about:
The goal is not for you to understand —
but to reject automatically.
“When they were in power…”
– No individual, no decision, no date is attacked,
only an entire group.
“Ruins before 2010, rebuilding after 2010”
– Fifteen years flattened into a single sentence,
with no process, no cost, no balance.
“Made everyone laugh”
– No rebuttal, no debate,
just emotional degradation.
“Someone who closed hospitals now demands one”
– The present question (Do we need a hospital?)
is replaced by accusations about the past.
“That’s why the DK doesn’t belong here”
– As if only two states existed:
either them,
or the current power.
There is no:
This is distraction, not information.
They don’t want you to decide whether North Pest needs a hospital.
They want you to instinctively hate the person who says it out loud.