This unfortunate German Balázs with three brain cells goes out there and says that Captain István was sent specifically to abolish utility price cuts and the bank tax.
The Tisza TikToker got offended because I dared to claim that the multinational boss joined Tisza in order to eliminate utility price cuts. Go ahead, go there and take utility price cuts away from the people!
At the same time, as a Tisza supporter, he openly admitted that he thinks utility price cuts are bad and should be abolished. I don’t agree with utility price cuts either.
What’s more, according to him, Magyar Péter and his people also know very well that utility price cuts should be abolished, but they don’t dare to talk about it during the campaign because they would lose.
I know exactly that Magyar Péter and his team cannot say that utility price cuts should be abolished, because then Fidesz would immediately launch a character assassination against them…
I’m not saying everything, because then we’d lose. Sounds familiar?
I know perfectly well that Magyar Péter and his people cannot say that utility price cuts should be abolished…
🎭 What is being said on the surface?
An emotional, personal attack claiming that:
- “Tisza” and Magyar Péter actually want to abolish utility price cuts,
- but allegedly do not dare to say so openly because they would “lose”,
- and that the speaker supposedly “knows this for a fact” from inside information.
🎯 What is the REAL function?
This is not a debate, not evidence, and not fact-finding – it is the reinforcement of a pre-fabricated narrative:
👉 “If they don’t say it, that’s proof.”
👉 “If they deny it, that’s also proof.”
This is self-sealing propaganda logic.
🧩 Key elements and techniques
1️⃣ The “confession” tactic (false admission)
“He admitted, as a Tisza supporter, that utility price cuts are bad…”
🔴 A classic maneuver:
- an individual opinion is stretched into a collective party program,
- then sold as an “internal revelation.”
👉 No quotation. No context. No evidence. Only branding and stigmatization.
2️⃣ Appeal to secret knowledge
“I know exactly that Magyar Péter’s people cannot say this…”
This is the “I’m an insider” rhetoric.
- no sources,
- no documents,
- no decisions,
yet the claim is delivered with absolute certainty.
👉 The goal is not truth, but authoritarian confidence.
3️⃣ Self-incriminating slip
This is the most revealing moment:
“I won’t say everything, because then we would lose.”
⚠️ This is highly telling:
- it openly admits campaign logic,
- not truth-telling,
- but control over what may be said and what must remain hidden.
👉 He accuses the opponent of exactly what he openly confesses himself.
4️⃣ Pre-fabricated defeat prophecy
“If they said it openly, they would immediately lose.”
This is not analysis, but:
- fear-mongering,
- voter intimidation,
- a loyalty test.
👉 “If you’re not with us, they will take away your utility price cuts.”
5️⃣ Character assassination as substitute for proof
“three brain cells,” “pathetic,” “triggered TikToker”
This is deliberate:
- when evidence is missing,
- dehumanization takes its place.
👉 Emotion replaces argument.
🧠 The core paradox
The speech contradicts itself:
- It claims “they can’t speak because they would lose,”
- then openly admits:
👉 “I can’t say everything, because then we would lose.”
This is projective propaganda:
👉 what the speaker knows about himself is projected onto the opponent.
🧾 Short conclusion (one sentence)
This statement is not about utility price cuts at all—it is about the admission that in a campaign, truth does not matter; only voters’ fears do—and this is openly acknowledged.