This is all Tisza can do! They would tear the country apart, bringing hostility, hatred, and conflict! That’s why the sensible majority will send them packing in April.
Tisza aggressors. While they were putting up their Tisza posters. Is there a problem? Yes, there is a problem, because this Tisza gang is irritating and the country has absolutely no need for people like them. Meanwhile, on International Women’s Day I brought flowers to the Tisza volunteers, and they tore down all the posters.
The lying Péter Magyar said they wouldn’t even put up posters, because it would be environmental pollution, a waste of money, propaganda, and all that nonsense. And now we’ve reached the point in North Pest where only Tisza posters are out, because they put them on the poles in place of the Fidesz posters. They cut down all the “Balázs Németh – The Safe Choice” posters and put up their own. You can check the photos and the videos.
Tisza aggressors. While putting up their Tisza posters, they yanked, damaged, pushed up, and rendered unusable the Balázs Németh poster underneath. And I also received news that they cut down the DK posters as well — the Balázs Barkóczi ones too. Here there’s hardly any Barkóczi posters left either, because from the Balázs Németh ones there’s only a single piece remaining.
These Tisza people are not decent people — they are criminals.
1️⃣ Dehumanization (dehumanization framing)
Excerpt
“They are not people, these Tisza supporters — they are criminals.”
Technique
The political opponent is presented not as a political actor, but as a group placed outside the category of normal human community.
Goal
- create moral distance
- remove the opponent’s legitimacy
- justify hostility or aggression toward them
Effect
The audience may feel that
➡️ the opponent does not simply hold a different opinion
➡️ but belongs to a “bad” or “dangerous” group.
This is one of the strongest polarization tools in political communication.
2️⃣ Moral labeling
Keywords
- “criminal gang”
- “criminals”
- “aggressors”
Technique
The political opponent is placed into a criminal category without concrete evidence or legal context.
Goal
- morally delegitimize the opponent
- transform political disagreement into a moral conflict
Effect
The reader may perceive that
➡️ this is not a political debate
➡️ but a conflict between “good people vs criminals.”
3️⃣ Emotional escalation
Excerpt
“They are wrecking the country, bringing hostility, hatred, and warmongering.”
Technique
Strongly exaggerated and dramatized language.
Keywords
- wrecking the country
- hatred
- warmongering
Goal
to trigger emotional reactions such as:
- anger
- fear
- outrage
Effect
The audience becomes less likely to evaluate the situation rationally.
4️⃣ Moral self-elevation (moral contrast)
Excerpt
“I brought flowers for the volunteers on Women’s Day…”
Technique
The speaker builds a moral contrast.
| own side | opponent |
|---|---|
| brings flowers | tears down posters |
| peaceful | aggressive |
Goal
to construct a narrative where
➡️ “we are the good ones”
➡️ “they are the bad ones”.
5️⃣ Aggressive labeling (labeling)
Keyword
“Tisza aggressors”
Technique
An entire political group is reduced to one negative label.
Goal
- simplify the opponent into a single category
- create an easily repeatable political narrative
Effect
The political group appears uniformly dangerous.
6️⃣ “Sensible majority” narrative (majority framing)
Excerpt
“That is why the sensible majority will drive them out in April.”
Technique
The speaker portrays their political side as representing the majority.
Goal
to create the perception that
➡️ anyone who disagrees
➡️ stands outside the “sensible majority.”
7️⃣ Reinforcing the enemy image (enemy construction)
The text repeatedly uses expressions such as:
- “Tisza aggressors”
- “criminal gang”
- “criminals”
Technique
Repetition.
Goal
to fix the enemy image in the audience’s mind.
⚠️ Overall picture
From a communication perspective, the text represents a classic polarizing campaign message.
Main elements
1️⃣ dehumanization
2️⃣ criminal labeling
3️⃣ emotional exaggeration
4️⃣ moral contrast (“we are good – they are bad”)
5️⃣ majority legitimacy (“the sensible majority”)
This combination typically serves to
➡️ provoke strong emotional reactions
➡️ strengthen tribal political identity
➡️ reduce rational debate.