It once again showed the standard represented by the pro-war opposition. Aggressive, violent, pro-war.
You want to? This is a complete idiot. There were people who showed up with dog excrement, dog feces. Well then, this is democracy. Can it go into the mailbox on Neptun Street now? The one where you made the TikTok video? It can go anywhere. It clearly reflects the standard of the opposition. This is a complete idiot. Everyone is “Tisza” to you. I show my face openly, because in a democracy no one should be ashamed of which party they support. We certainly are not ashamed that we stand on the side of peace. They showed up with dog mess, with dog feces. Well then, this is democracy. And yes, the majority will save them from the war as well.
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis
Topic: “aggressive opposition + moral superiority + peace vs. war” narrative
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ Labeling and Dehumanization – “stupid animal”
Technique: personal insult + dehumanizing language
Goal: to turn the opponent from a legitimate political actor into someone “morally inferior”
Effect: the audience no longer evaluates claims but feels emotional aversion → reflex rejection instead of debate
2️⃣ Single case → collective judgment
Technique: generalization from a cherry-picked scene
👉 behavior of one or a few individuals = “the level of the opposition”
Goal: to discredit an entire political side without evidence
Effect: the brain switches to fast pattern recognition (“they’re all like this”), reducing critical thinking
3️⃣ Use of shocking imagery – “dog poop, feces”
Technique: disgust-triggering visual keywords
Goal: provoke a strong emotional reaction (disgust trigger)
Effect: disgust is one of the strongest political manipulation emotions → rational thinking is suppressed
4️⃣ False binary – “we are pro-peace vs. they are pro-war”
Technique: false dilemma
👉 only two options exist:
- us = peace
- them = war
Goal: turn politics into a moral survival decision
Effect: voters choose not programs but “good vs. bad side”
5️⃣ Moral superiority narrative
Technique: self-positioning as the morally pure side
👉 “we show our faces”
👉 “we’re not ashamed”
Goal: build identity-based loyalty
Effect: support becomes tribal identity rather than rational choice
6️⃣ Enemy image + savior narrative
Technique: threat + salvation combination
👉 “they would drag us into war”
👉 “we will save you”
Goal: generate fear → then offer safety from the same actor
Effect: classic political dependency-building
7️⃣ “Everyone is Tisza” – constructing a homogeneous enemy
Technique: homogenization
Goal: erase diversity within the opponent → easier to attack a single “mass”
Effect: individual responsibility distinctions disappear
🎯 Overall Pattern
The text is not trying to convey information but to create an emotional state:
disgust + anger + fear + moral superiority = political loyalty
This is the classic mobilization-propaganda formula.
✅ Short diagnosis:
This is not political argumentation but an emotional trigger text designed to:
- delegitimize the opponent
- mobilize the base
- emotionally influence undecided audiences