Hatred, violence, aggression – this is the Tisza Party in North Pest! Whoever wants peace and calm votes for Fidesz 🇭🇺✌️
So far, this is all we have seen from Tisza in North Pest: smearing, hatred, aggression, violence – that’s what they are. And when it comes to meaningful questions, to important issues that determine the country’s future – war, utility costs, migration – they have never been able to give answers.
They move around like a mob, then tear down posters everywhere. And we clean up after them. But now there are only 22 days left, and they will fall silent. And look, even here – they are just 50 meters away.
🔍 Main narrative
👉 “They = violence, chaos, aggression”
👉 “We = peace, order, normality”
👉 “They are incompetent (can’t answer questions)”
👉 “They destroy (tearing down posters)”
👉 “We are responsible (we clean up after them)”
👉 “We will defeat them soon (22 days)”
➡️ Classic formula:
demonization of the enemy + moral superiority + incompetence + order vs chaos + promise of victory
🧠 Persuasion techniques
1️⃣ Labeling and repetition
“Hatred, violence, aggression” – repeated multiple times
Technique:
➡️ the same negative words repeated again and again
➡️ creating an emotional anchor
Goal:
➡️ automatic association: Tisza = aggression
Effect:
➡️ you stop thinking → you react emotionally
2️⃣ Black-and-white framing (false dichotomy)
“Whoever wants peace → votes for Fidesz”
Technique:
➡️ no middle ground
➡️ simplifying the choice
Goal:
➡️ forced decision: “if you’re normal → you belong here”
Effect:
➡️ steering undecided voters
3️⃣ Generalization without evidence
“So far, this is all we’ve seen”
Technique:
➡️ isolated cases → presented as general truth
➡️ no concrete data, just claims
Goal:
➡️ reinforce the narrative without proof
Effect:
➡️ repeated exposure → feels true
4️⃣ Attacking competence (delegitimization)
“They have never been able to answer important questions”
Technique:
➡️ undermining the opponent’s credibility
➡️ without concrete examples
Goal:
➡️ “they are unfit to govern”
Effect:
➡️ loss of trust in the opponent
5️⃣ Dehumanization / portraying as a mass
“They move like a horde”
Technique:
➡️ opponent = uncontrolled crowd
➡️ removes individual responsibility
Goal:
➡️ trigger fear + contempt
Effect:
➡️ easier to reject them
6️⃣ Moral contrast
“They destroy → we clean up”
Technique:
➡️ positive self-image vs negative opponent
➡️ “we represent order”
Goal:
➡️ build moral superiority
Effect:
➡️ “good side vs bad side” feeling
7️⃣ Time pressure and victory narrative
“Only 22 days left and they will fall silent”
Technique:
➡️ image of imminent victory
➡️ countdown framing
Goal:
➡️ mobilization
➡️ “now is the moment to hold on”
Effect:
➡️ activates the base
8️⃣ Illusion of “on-the-spot evidence”
“Look, it’s right here, 50 meters away”
Technique:
➡️ creates a sense of immediacy
➡️ anecdotal evidence
Goal:
➡️ increase perceived credibility
Effect:
➡️ feels real → even if unverifiable
⚠️ What you pointed out (important part)
👉 “their own people do something → then they blame the opponent”
At the communication level, this looks like:
🔄 9️⃣ False flag narrative (false attribution / projection)
Technique:
➡️ own actions → projected onto the opponent
➡️ or: whatever happens → automatically blamed on the opponent
Goal:
➡️ keep one’s own side “clean”
➡️ continuously frame the opponent negatively
Effect:
➡️ reality becomes blurred
➡️ “it doesn’t matter what happened, we know who’s guilty”
⚠️ Important:
This cannot be proven from the text alone, but the communication structure allows and supports this type of interpretation.
🧩 Overall picture
This text follows a classic campaign formula:
➡️ demonizing the opponent (violence, hatred)
➡️ presenting themselves in a positive role (order, cleanup, peace)
➡️ attacking competence
➡️ simplifying the choice (good vs bad)
➡️ mobilizing with time pressure
🎯 In short
👉 It doesn’t aim to inform, but to create an emotional state
👉 It doesn’t aim to prove, but to frame
👉 It doesn’t aim to nuance, but to polarize