Category: Uncategorized

Well, because you could eat it. You could eat it. But not you ate it — Orbán ate it, but you could eat it. But wait, what happened, what happened was that Viktor Orbán and his people threw a bigger-scale thing together, obviously still before the election, before the big collapse, and they thought they’d splash out a bit, loosen the purse strings. All of this according to Hadházy. All of this according to Hadházy, yes, of course — but we do believe what Hadházy says.

And what happened was that if we crash hard in April, then we’ll even go to prison, so at least we should eat something good next to his son — but what should we cook? And since Viktor Orbán is a traditional man, he sticks to household-style matters.

Instead of a pig slaughter, that’s what they held. They went out onto the terrace, and then they saw, well, there’s chicken, there’s pig — and then right on the snowy hillside a zebra ran across in the background. And they said: zebra. And then that’s a kind of specialty, a kind of gastronomy, so let’s eat zebra.

And I don’t know exactly how, but I suppose they borrowed Ákos Hadházy’s quad bike. I imagine Viktor Orbán in some kind of WESCO boots, catching this zebra with a lasso. Well, not that — with the armored vehicle he… the security guard. They lassoed the zebra, caught it, burly men pinned it down, and then there was a zebra slaughter.

And then they🎯 Core Function

This is not factual reporting, but caricature.
It distorts political accusations into grotesque imagery (“zebra slaughter,” “lassoing a zebra”) in order to:

• trivialize allegations of corruption or moral wrongdoing,
• mentally exhaust the audience,
• and make those who take the accusations seriously appear laughable.

🔧 Techniques Used

1️⃣ Absurd Exaggeration (reductio ad absurdum)

Real or alleged criticisms are pushed to such an extreme that they become ridiculous:

• pig slaughter → zebra slaughter
• corruption → exotic feast

👉 Message: “If you believe this, you’ll believe anything.”

---

2️⃣ Ironic “Validation”

“This is all according to Hadházy… but of course we believe Hadházy.”

This is an apparent concession that actually functions as mockery:

• it pretends to accept the source,
• then immediately turns it into absurdity.

📌 Target: Hadházy Ákos portrayed as the “excessive accuser.”

---

3️⃣ Infantilizing Humor and Visual Imagery

• “rubber boots”
• “lasso”
• “burly men”
• “a zebra running across the background”

This fairy-tale-like, childlike imagery:

• emotionally distances the audience from real issues,
• prevents rational evaluation.

---

4️⃣ Deflecting Responsibility Through Laughter

Humor acts as a shield:

• anyone who criticizes is labeled “humorless,”
• anyone who questions is told they “don’t get the joke.”

This is a classic cynical propaganda reflex.

---

🧩 Hidden Message

The story is not about zebras, but about this idea:

“Criticism of those in power is exaggerated and unserious, therefore it does not deserve attention.”

Here, laughter does not liberate — it shuts down thinking.

---

🧠 Summary

This text functions as:

• 🎭 defense disguised as satire,
• 🧯 tension release through mockery,
• 🧱 intellectual deflection against criticism.

The “zebra slaughter” is not a joke, but a rhetorical device —
used to make real questions disappear. ate it.

---

The party is getting started. Ursula’s people are collecting the required “deliverables” from Peti’s team. The €800 billion aid package for Ukraine has to be pushed through on the Hungarians — otherwise Auntie von der Leyen will get angry and won’t sign off on Peti’s performance certificate. 🫢
Zoltán Tarr has already explained what Tisza supporters are supposed to think about the financial aid: it’s a business opportunity!!!!

Meanwhile, the European Commission has also written down what they expect from Tisza: invest in Ukraine and abolish the measures that support Hungarian families, young people, and pensioners. This is going to look great by April 🤔🫢

Wow, I see the Tisza crowd has started screeching at full volume. Because yesterday it became clear that Hungarian families would have to contribute 1.3 million forints per family to Ukraine — if Hungary were to follow the EU mainstream and if we accepted Zelensky’s demand that the European Union funnel $800 billion through its member states to “rebuild” Ukraine.

Now, yesterday it also became clear why these expectations are coming from Brussels, specifically toward Tisza. Because this is not some voluntary, beloved service project. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Tisza must fulfill certain demands imposed on them by EU leaders.

It’s no coincidence, for example, that Zoltán Tarr has already started explaining why it would supposedly be good for Hungarians to invest in Ukraine — because Ukraine will be a massive financial opportunity if the Russians are defeated.

Now I’d like to ask: is this Russian defeat here in the room with us right now, dear Zoltán?
And secondly: how exactly is it a “huge business opportunity” for Hungarians to pour Hungarian people’s money into Ukraine? What are you even talking about, guys?

Shouldn’t we be supporting Hungarian people instead? What Ukrainian market are we even talking about?

Zoltán Tarr’s reasoning is not accidental either, because Brussels’ expectations toward the Hungarian government have already appeared — including demands such as abolishing tax exemptions for mothers, family tax benefits, and essentially eliminating everything that helps Hungarian people.

So the picture is coming together more and more clearly. The situation is that Ursula’s people are now expecting some tangible results from Peti’s team — but it seems they’re not really managing to push this through the Hungarian public.

I think Hungarians still believe that the money they work for belongs to them — for example, in the form of tax benefits. And no, we do not want to invest in any Ukrainian market. We want Hungarian money to stay with Hungarian people.

So yes — the party is getting started.

🎭 Central Narrative

“Tisza is Brussels’ puppet, would pay Ukraine, and therefore would take money away from Hungarian families.”

The purpose of the text is not to provide evidence, but to incite anger and moral panic, and then to force a single political conclusion from it:
👉 “Do not vote for them.”

---

1️⃣ Conspiracy framing (“Ursula’s people,” “performance certificate”)

“Ursula’s people are collecting the required task from Peti’s people.”

🔹 Technique: backroom-deal narrative
🔹 Effect:

• creates the impression of secret external control
• completely denies the political opponent’s sovereignty

👉 Trick:
There is no document, no decision, no legal mechanism — only insinuation.

Referenced actors:

• Ursula von der Leyen
• European Commission

---

2️⃣ Fictional numerology (“1.3 million forints per family”)

“It turned out that Hungarian families would have to contribute 1.3 million forints.”

🔹 Technique: false quantification
🔹 Effect:

• shocking concreteness
• the feeling that “this is already happening tomorrow”

👉 Trick:

• no law
• no budget line
• no decision-making body named

The number follows from nothing, yet it functions as a strong emotional anchor.

---

3️⃣ Scapegoating + infantilization (“Peti’s people,” “Ursula’s people”)

🔹 Technique: diminutive language as devaluation
🔹 Effect:

• makes the opponent seem unserious
• frames them as “obedient children, not statesmen”

👉 This is not an argument, but hierarchy-building.

---

4️⃣ Strawman Ukraine economy (“business opportunity = burning Hungarian money”)

“Ukraine will be a huge financial opportunity.”

🔹 Technique: distorted quotation + moral outrage
🔹 Effect:

• makes it sound like a mandatory payment
• while “opportunity” actually refers to a conditional investment or future market

👉 The text deliberately conflates:

• geopolitical discourse
• compulsory Hungarian financial contribution

Referenced actor:

• Zoltán Tarr

---

5️⃣ Anti-family panic package (“they will take everything away”)

“abolish mothers’ tax exemptions and family tax benefits”

🔹 Technique: apocalyptic packaging
🔹 Effect:

• existential fear
• “if they come, everything will be taken away”

👉 Trick:

• no specific EU regulation
• no resolution
• no quoted document

Only: “Brussels expects it” — without any source.

---

6️⃣ External enemy + internal traitor dual framework

🔹 External enemy: Brussels, Ukraine
🔹 Internal traitor: Tisza

👉 Classic propaganda formula:
“This is not a debate — this is betrayal.”

Referenced actors:

• Tisza Party
• Volodymyr Zelenskyy

---

7️⃣ Closing emotional framing (“the party is starting”)

🔹 Technique: cynical framing
🔹 Effect:

• degrades the entire political debate into a “farce”
• reinforces one side’s sense of moral superiority

👉 This is no longer information — it is combat rhetoric.

---

🧠 Summary – what is actually happening?

This text:

✔️ does not present facts
✔️ does not analyze decisions
✔️ does not explain legal or budgetary processes

❌ activates emotional reflexes
❌ manufactures enemy images
❌ chains together unproven claims

👉 Goal: do not think — fear and rage instead.

We answered questions from viewers. Móni asked whether the so-called “flying start” is still going on. We tried to explain to her as well what the real economic situation in Hungary looks like today. Because it’s not as simple as “Lőrinc and the others stole everything and that’s it.” You see, this is a much more complex issue than that 😘

– Is the “flying start” still ongoing?

– Absolutely. As far as I’m concerned, it still is.

– And to answer this seriously: Viktor himself also said that the 2025 budget was clearly built on the assumption that Russia and Ukraine would make peace with each other, and that this war, which is happening right next to us, not very far away, would no longer continue to affect the Hungarian economy—just as it affects the economy of every European country, given that the European Union is pouring EU citizens’ money into a war.

Orbán also said that economic growth could have been higher if they had not introduced the personal income tax exemption for mothers with two and three children, and if they had not increased—indeed doubled—the family tax allowances, and if there had not been the 3% subsidized loan either.

So if these benefits and population-supporting measures had not been introduced, growth really would have been higher. But they accepted that instead it would stagnate, in exchange for giving support directly to Hungarian people.

Honestly, I’m also just stagnating like this. And I would have chosen this option anyway.

👉 Propaganda function:
The goal is not to explain why there is no growth, but to suggest that “in theory there is growth — you just can’t see it.”

---

2️⃣ “The budget was built on peace” → retroactive excuse-making

Technique: ex post rationalization
The 2025 budget was based on an assumption (“there will be peace”), not on proper risk analysis.

👉 Message:
The government did not make a mistake → the world went wrong.

👉 Reality:
A responsible budget is not built on a single geopolitical assumption.

---

3️⃣ “Every European country is suffering” → collective absolution

Technique: relativization
If everyone is doing badly, then no one is responsible.

👉 Propaganda function:
Hungary’s specific economic problems (inflation, collapse in investment, real wage volatility) disappear into the “European noise.”

---

4️⃣ “The EU is pouring money into the war” → scapegoating

Technique: external enemy narrative
The EU = a money-burning war machine
Hungary = an innocent victim

👉 Omitted facts:

• EU funds were withheld not because of the war, but due to rule-of-law issues
• Energy and inflation shocks were amplified by domestic policy decisions

---

5️⃣ “Growth could have been higher, but we chose to give to people” → false dilemma

Technique:
👉 either economic growth
👉 or family support

As if the two were mutually exclusive.

👉 Propaganda function:
Stagnation is reframed as a moral virtue:

“It doesn’t matter that it’s not growing — at least we are good people.”

---

6️⃣ “If we hadn’t given it, growth would have been higher” → preemptive defense

This is a built-in shield against criticism:

• If there is no growth → it was a conscious choice
• If you criticize it → you are anti-family

👉 This is classic emotional blackmail.

---

7️⃣ “I would have chosen this too” → personal identification

Technique: subjective closure
The ending offers not data, not arguments, but emotion.

👉 Goal:
To stop the audience from thinking further and encourage identification instead.

---

🔚 Overall picture – what is really happening?

This text:

• does not explain — it absolves
• does not measure — it tells stories
• does not seek accountability — it deflects
• does not invite debate — it sets a moral trap

Stagnation is no longer failure, but a “noble sacrifice.”
A planning error is no longer an error, but “preparing for peace.”
Criticism is no longer legitimate, but “anti-family.”

This is not economic analysis, but political self-justification — after the fact.