Category: neverfoget

AfD and fidesz….

At the commemoration marking the anniversary of last year’s Magdeburg terrorist attack — when a car rammed into the Christmas market, killing five people and injuring hundreds — Chancellor Merz was booed, and people shouted at him: “Get out of here! Shame on you!”

Everyone gets what their government has delivered to them…

Fidesz seeks to influence German domestic politics by embracing the AfD

Bayer Zsolt and Németh Balázs exemplify the political norms that Fidesz expects—and enforces— in Hungary in 2025.

Bayer Zsolt
– Recipient of the Knight’s Cross of the Hungarian Order of Merit
– One of the founding members of Fidesz
– A close confidant of Prime Minister Orbán Viktor

1️⃣ Style and Tone

The statements are consistently delivered in an indefensible tone: personal attacks, mockery, insults, and obscene phrasing. Argumentation is replaced by emotion-driven tirades. The speakers are visibly comfortable in this environment—the exaggerated language is not a flaw, but an identity.

2️⃣ Content Patterns

  • Enemy construction: homogenizing “Brussels,” the opposition, journalists, and civil society into a single hostile bloc.
  • Conspiracy narratives: the normalization of unsubstantiated claims.
  • False dilemmas: “peace vs. betrayal,” “the nation vs. the enemy.”
  • Performance over substance: how something is said overrides what is actually being said.

3️⃣ Absence of Self-Reflection

There is no correction, no fact-checking, no accountability. Criticism is deflected as hostile attack, reinforcing a closed echo chamber.

4️⃣ Target Audience and Function

The program does not aim to persuade, but to bind and inflame. For its audience, this tone feels familiar because it provides identity: “this is how we speak.” Loudness functions as a loyalty test.

5️⃣ Consequence

The degradation and brutalization of public discourse: arguments disappear, only emotion remains. The “level” at which the speakers feel comfortable is deliberately kept low, because mobilization works best there.

In short:

This is not debate and not information—it is performed outrage.
The style is not incidental; it is the message itself.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xPjBWMU5jwQ%3Fsi%3D80kVWc0NCN_mgceq

menczer The shame of Hungary.

“Hi, kiddo! I saw that you posted about me and stated that I am the pinnacle of inhumanity—the pinnacle of inhumanity. Now listen, kiddo: I’ve just got home, I’m walking through the door, I’m going to kiss my wife and give my four-and-a-half-year-old son a kiss. I’m going to my family, because I have one, you know? They’re waiting for me, they love me. And do you know why? Because I would never—never—betray them. My ex-wife doesn’t say about me that I’m some kind of ‘entity,’ and I’m not the one whose own son refuses to speak to him.”

“That’s all you, kiddo.”
“You’re just getting what you deserve.”
“Have a nice evening with Ilike—please pass on my hand-kiss!”

“Hello, little one” – not an argument, but hierarchy-building.
👉 The goal: to push the addressed person into a subordinate position.

2️⃣ Performing moral superiority
“I kiss my wife, I kiss my son”
👉 Not a response to criticism, but emotional blackmail:

“Whoever has a family is right.”

3️⃣ Private-life character assassination
Dragging in the ex-wife, the child, family relations
👉 Classic distraction tactic:
instead of addressing the accusations, he talks about the other person’s alleged “worthlessness.”

4️⃣ Projection
“This is all you”
👉 He redirects his own aggression onto the opponent.

5️⃣ Closing, threatening framing
“You’re just getting what you deserve”
👉 Normalizes verbal aggression as “justified punishment.”

One-sentence exposing reply (as you asked):

“When someone parades their family instead of making an argument, it usually means they know they can’t answer the criticism on a professional level.”

cant stop…

Partial successes have been achieved by the Patriots. The situation is that something truly unprecedented has happened. Twenty-four countries have decided to grant war loans to Ukraine.

The problem is that war loans are meant to be repaid, and for that, the war has to be won. So the decision itself means that a large part of Europe’s leadership has decided that Europe must go deeper into the war. Now it’s no longer just about financing it, but about setting victory as an explicit objective—because only that way can the loans be repaid.

Frankly, the European leadership is in a terrible state. Many times I thought this was some kind of joke or part of a political game, but over the last couple of days it became clear that they are dead serious. They genuinely mean what they have been saying: that we must fight a war—and prepare for a war—like the ones our grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought.

But we Hungarians, for example, do not want this—and I believe others don’t either. This whole madness is simply incomprehensible.

1️⃣ Framing inevitability

“For now, it looks like Europe will not stay out of the war.”

This is psychological preconditioning.
It is not a statement of fact, but mood-setting: it suggests that
👉 there is no choice
👉 drifting into the war is inevitable

This is the classic “not today, but tomorrow for sure” logic.

2️⃣ Technical decision = entering the war

“24 countries have decided to provide war loans to Ukraine… which means going deeper into the war.”

This is deliberate concept-blurring:

  • a financial decision ≠ military involvement
  • a loan ≠ entering a war
  • political support ≠ “Europe winning the war”

👉 A textbook slippery manipulation, where an administrative act is tied to apocalyptic consequences.

3️⃣ Constructing forced logic

“Loans must be repaid → therefore the war must be won”

This is a false causal chain:

  • as if Europe were the belligerent
  • as if Europe had to achieve a military victory
  • as if no other outcomes existed (negotiations, frozen conflict, partial settlement)

👉 This is not analysis — it is psychological coercion.

4️⃣ The “mad elite” narrative

“European leadership is in a terrible state… they mean this dead seriously.”

This is emotional delegitimization:

  • “European leadership” is portrayed as collectively insane
  • irrational
  • dangerous

👉 It does not argue — it diagnoses mental instability.

5️⃣ Activating historical trauma

“We must fight a war like our grandfathers and great-grandfathers did.”

This is the strongest manipulative element:

  • world-war imagery
  • total mobilization
  • generational fear

👉 This is not a realistic description of the situation, but memory-political shock tactics.

6️⃣ “We Hungarians” – emotional appropriation

“We Hungarians, for example, do not want this.”

This is collective voice abuse:

  • the speaker elevates their own opinion into a national will
  • anyone who disagrees is implicitly “not truly Hungarian”

👉 A classic case of identity-based exclusion.

In summary

This text does not inform. It:

  • instills fear
  • suggests inevitability
  • blurs key concepts
  • triggers emotional reflexes
  • weaponizes historical trauma

📌 This is not war analysis.
This is war psychology.

orban The shame of Hungary.

The Tisza Party’s pages have slipped from their hands and landed on the front pages: 602 pages of austerity and Brussels-style war psychosis pour out of them.
🆚
🇭🇺 By contrast, there is a Hungarian plan: a program that supports families, entrepreneurs, young people, and the elderly alike. A plan whose goal is to make Hungary strong, great, and happy again.

“The package and program of the Tisza Party are exactly what those in Brussels are doing. So anyone who believes that what is being done in Brussels is the right path should definitely vote for the Tisza Party, because the Tisza program is Brussels’ program. We, on the other hand, are doing the opposite. Let me say again: I am not claiming that one could not construct a logical argument behind a very harsh, Tisza-style austerity package. But that would mean switching to a war economy. That would mean no 14th-month pension—indeed, not even a 13th—no family support system, no first-home scheme for young people, no fixed 3% rate for small and medium-sized businesses. None of that would exist; it would be a different world. And in my view Hungary must not step onto this Brussels path; it must remain on its own Hungarian path, and I believe this path is viable.”

Orbán Viktor once again builds on the same single template:

What does the text actually do?

1️⃣ False binary choice

“Brussels path” vs. “Hungarian path”
There is no middle ground, no third option, no nuance. This is classic either–or framing.

2️⃣ Demonization of the Tisza Party = personification of Brussels
No concrete elements of the Tisza Party’s program are mentioned—only that it is “Brussels-backed,” therefore automatically bad.

3️⃣ Fear-based chain reaction

If Tisza →
➡️ “austerity”
➡️ “war-time economy”
➡️ no 13th–14th month pension
➡️ no family support
➡️ no housing support
➡️ no SME loans

👉 This is not analysis, but apocalyptic slippage.

4️⃣ Conditional absolution

“It could be argued logically”
This is a rhetorical trick: it pretends to be fair-minded, then immediately buries the entire argument.

5️⃣ What is deliberately left unsaid

Not a word about:

  • the real state of public finances,
  • the absence of EU funds,
  • inflation,
  • or the fact that all of these are already creating budgetary pressure.

In short:

This is not an economic debate, but
👉 a “if you don’t vote for me, everything will be taken away from you” narrative.

Hungary should be ashamed of itself because of Orbán — and many Hungarians are ashamed because of him.

The situation is that this money would be far better spent here on the Great Hungarian Plain, in the form of a modern road, than being blown to pieces in Donbas and ending up in the side pocket of some Ukrainian oligarch. So, ladies and gentlemen, this is also what is at stake in next year’s election.

And if we’re already talking about roads: which road will we take? We live in a democracy; Hungarians get to decide this—and rightly so, every four years, they decide which direction we should go.

It is clearly visible that there are two paths ahead of us. We can take the Brussels path, which means our money is taken away from here, used somewhere else, and others benefit and develop from it.

Or we have the option to stay here, in Hungary—to stay on the Hungarian path—and continue as we have over the past 15 years. In that case, Hungary will develop, Hungary will grow, and Hungary will become stronger.

For that, of course, we must retain all of our mandates.

NEVER FORGET

The situation is that this money would be far better spent here on the Great Hungarian Plain, in the form of a modern road, than being blown to pieces in Donbas and ending up in the side pocket of some Ukrainian oligarch. So, ladies and gentlemen, this is also what is at stake in next year’s election.

And if we’re already talking about roads: which road will we take? We live in a democracy; Hungarians get to decide this—and rightly so, every four years, they decide which direction we should go.

It is clearly visible that there are two paths ahead of us. We can take the Brussels path, which means our money is taken away from here, used somewhere else, and others benefit and develop from it.

Or we have the option to stay here, in Hungary—to stay on the Hungarian path—and continue as we have over the past 15 years. In that case, Hungary will develop, Hungary will grow, and Hungary will become stronger.

For that, of course, we must retain all of our mandates.

Hungarian government propaganda

Mark Rutte’s war obsession knows no bounds!
According to him, Europe is ready to send troops to Ukraine, and our young people are ready to take up arms. The NATO Secretary General wants war at any cost, and he is backed by Brussels and its domestic outposts, Tisza Party and Democratic Coalition, because they are pro-war. We, however, will not give our sons and daughters to fight someone else’s war!
Those who want peace should choose a pro-peace government!