Category: dezse propaganda : Words vs. Facts

💭 Trends from the virtual world have seeped into Hungarian politics as well, resulting in a campaign that is louder, more chaotic, and more opaque than ever. What we’re seeing reflected in this whole mess is the reality problem of people in their late twenties and early thirties: those who can’t find their place in real life have fled into the virtual space and are now frantically filling it with all kinds of madness. In Hungarian politics, this was further amplified by the “arrival” of Péter Magyar, and the governing parties are trying to keep up with this rhythm. The reality, however, is that those who have not only found their place in the real world but actually feel good in it will always remain a minority in this space.

…

Because escaping into the virtual world is a real problem—and the situation is made even worse by the fact that people are no longer just fleeing there, but are projecting everything they perceive there onto reality. They think that if a post gets a lot of likes, then its content must be true. They think that if someone writes something, it must inevitably come to pass. They believe that if they bombard someone with laughing emojis, that person will become an object of ridicule. In reality, none of this even exists. Photos, posts, and likes do not exist in the real world. In real life, there are faces expressing emotions, actions, success and failure. And in the reality of politics, there are decisions, agreements, negotiations, diplomacy, speeches, and official positions—things that affect all of our lives in the real world.

1️⃣ Generational condescension as an explanation

“the reality problem of people in their late twenties and early thirties”

What’s happening?
A political phenomenon is reclassified as a psychological–generational flaw.
Instead of engaging with arguments, it attributes immaturity and identity confusion to an entire age group.

🎯 Technique: Ad hominem + generational framing
👉 Those affected are not political opponents, but “lost young people.”

---

2️⃣ Reality vs. virtual world – a false dichotomy

“they fled into the virtual space”
“those who can’t find their place in reality”

What’s the trick?
Two mutually exclusive worlds are constructed:

❌ virtual = fake, noisy, insane
✅ reality = calm, stable, legitimate

What is ignored:

• politics has always been a communicative space as well,
• social media is now a real tool of power and influence.

🎯 Technique: False dichotomy
👉 If you’re active online, you’re “not living in reality.”

---

3️⃣ Majority–minority myth-making

“they will always remain a minority”
“those who feel good in reality”

What’s happening?
A self-justifying narrative:

• we = the quiet, stable majority
• they = the loud, insignificant minority

No data, no measurement—just a pre-declared political reality.

🎯 Technique: Silent majority framing
👉 “We” are automatically legitimate; “noise” is automatically irrelevant.

---

4️⃣ Magyar Péter as a catalyst, not an actor

“the ‘arrival’ of Magyar Péter”

What’s the move?
Religious–messianic language (“arrival”):

• it inflates the phenomenon,
• while simultaneously dismissing it as irrational hysteria.

🎯 Technique: Delegitimizing personalization
👉 No program, no social causes—just a “phenomenon.”

---

5️⃣ Likes = lies – reductive psychologization

“they think that if a post gets a lot of likes, then it must be true”

What’s the problem?
A real issue is mentioned (algorithmic distortion),
but it’s simplified into a caricature—as if all online activity were naive belief.

Completely missing:

• media literacy,
• conscious political mobilization,
• the role of organized online communities.

🎯 Technique: Strawman + intellectual superiority framing
👉 “We know this isn’t reality—they don’t.”

---

6️⃣ “Photos, posts, and likes don’t exist” – an ontological trick

This is the strongest—and most problematic—statement.

What’s happening?
It literally denies the existence of digital reality, even though:

• political campaigns,
• voter mobilization,
• public opinion shaping

are all happening there.

This is not analysis, but a redefinition of reality.

🎯 Technique: Reality denial framing
👉 What doesn’t fit the narrative “doesn’t exist.”

---

7️⃣ The big picture – what does the text actually do?

It doesn’t say:
“Let’s be careful about online distortions.”

It says this instead:
“Anyone who engages politically in the digital space is not a real person.”

That:

• delegitimizes,
• looks down on,
• excludes,
• and preemptively absolves those in power from responding to any online challenge.

Oh my God! So they’re not independent after all?? I know, I know—if those kind Brussels ladies and gentlemen didn’t donate to these poor journalists, they’d starve! And lots of people actually believe that 😀😀😀
Just take a look at who’s getting money from Auntie Ursula.

So how exactly do they remain independent when the European Commission just casually threw 120 million forints at them—this time alone? And let’s not forget, this isn’t even the first time foreign money has landed in the 444 newsroom. Until now, I honestly thought they were funded by readers, just like Telex and the other “independent, objective” media outlets.

I wonder if, in return, they don’t get a few little requests—maybe to write nice things about Ursula von der Leyen and the work of the European Commission, or perhaps to repeat over and over how idiotic Viktor Orbán is for wanting peace between Russia and Ukraine. Or do they just get this money as a friendly little kiss on the cheek, simply because Auntie Ursula is such a nice person?

1️⃣ Ironic pseudo-naivety (“Oh my God! So they’re not independent after all??”)

The speaker is not asking a question, but mocking.

The “fake naïve” tone suggests: “only idiots ever believed they were independent.”

👉 Ridicule framing: making a differing opinion look ridiculous.

---

2️⃣ Financial support = moral compromise

A simplified line of reasoning:

received money → cannot be independent

There is no mention of:

grant conditions,

editorial independence,

transparency.

👉 False cause (false causality).

---

3️⃣ “Auntie Ursula” – infantilization and personalization

Ursula von der Leyen appears not as an institution, but as a “nice aunt.”

The institutional nature of the European Commission disappears.

👉 Personalization + belittling: political system → gossip-level narrative.

---

4️⃣ Insinuation without evidence

Classic question-form suggestion:

“I wonder if, in return, they don’t get some requests…?”

No statement, no proof—only suspicion.

👉 Insinuation technique.

---

5️⃣ Construction of an enemy list

Targets simultaneously:

444

Telex

“independent, objective media” (in quotation marks)

Brussels / the EU

👉 Us vs. Them framing: “we” (national, sensible) vs. “they” (foreign-funded).

---

6️⃣ Emotional reframing: peace vs. betrayal

Viktor Orbán = “wanting peace”

Criticism of him = calling him an idiot = foreign instruction

👉 Moral reframing: political debate → moral attack against “peace.”

---

Overall picture – what is this in one sentence?

This text is not about media financing, but about:

discrediting the independent press,

portraying criticism as externally directed,

and turning political loyalty into a moral issue.

🎯 Goal: don’t ask whether what they write is true—believe that they cannot be telling the truth.

Karácsony Gergely is sad that people are criticizing him, even though he believes he is still doing everything very skillfully 😃
The mayor himself admits what Péter’s supporters were loudly denying just yesterday: there is a snowfall the likes of which hasn’t been seen in a long time, which means more tasks and even round-the-clock work. Yet instead of focusing on his duties as mayor, Karácsony is once again scrolling through Facebook, where dissatisfied comments and posts naturally appear, criticizing the current city leadership whenever there are disruptions. As a result, Karácsony has now taken offense at his critics. Poor guy.

The mayor writes that propagandists and half of the Fidesz parliamentary group are “running wild” — in the usual, endlessly repeated way — claiming that snowflakes should already be caught in mid-air. He says he cannot promise that, only “organized work.”

He then draws a completely meaningless conclusion, claiming that a “nice piece of feedback” on his “organized work” is that the government illustrates its own efforts with a special machine from the Buda operational unit of Budapest Public Utilities — something to which, incidentally, neither the state nor the operational task force has anything to do. (Or perhaps this was simply the image the page’s graphic designer found when they wanted to ILLUSTRATE a situation.) I think my guess is much closer to reality.

So Karácsony once again strikes his well-worn victim pose and posts about “propagandists” on Facebook instead of resolving the still-existing problems at full speed. Just the usual routine. The reality, however, is that Facebook posts will not be enough this time. People in real life know and feel exactly when something hasn’t been handled due to incompetence, and when that puts them at increased risk. And they made this very clear in the comments under the mayor’s post. 🤭

1️⃣ Mocking opening → emotional priming

“Karácsony is sad… Poor guy.”

What’s happening?

The very first sentence sets a condescending tone.
Instead of engaging with the arguments, it pushes the subject into an emotional role: offended, weak, complaining.

🎯 Technique: Ridicule framing
👉 From the outset, the audience is led to see the mayor as someone “not to be taken seriously.”

---

2️⃣ False dilemma: Facebook vs. work

“Instead of doing his job, he is once again scrolling through Facebook.”

What’s the trick?

An artificial choice is created: either he works, or he communicates.
It ignores the fact that, in a crisis, a city leader is also obliged to communicate.

🎯 Technique: False dichotomy
👉 Leadership communication is reframed as laziness.

---

3️⃣ “Victim pose” narrative → erosion of legitimacy

“He strikes his well-worn victim pose.”

Function:

Any response to criticism is framed not as a response, but as whining.
This pre-emptively discredits all further explanations.

🎯 Technique: Victim framing inversion
👉 The criticized leader is recast as an “over-sensitive aggressor.”

---

4️⃣ Quote stripped of context → accusation of meaninglessness

“A completely meaningless conclusion.”

What’s missing?

There is no explanation of why it would be meaningless.
It is simply declared so. This is an authoritarian judgment, not an argument.

🎯 Technique: Assertion without substantiation
👉 The audience feels: “it must be nonsense,” without knowing why.

---

5️⃣ Turning the word “propagandists” against itself

“Karácsony posts about ‘propagandists.’”

Double twist:

A term used by the opponent is cynically flipped back.
The word itself is made ridiculous, rather than debating its substance.

🎯 Technique: Semantic sabotage
👉 The accusation of propaganda becomes “just whining.”

---

6️⃣ “People know and feel” → anonymous crowd

“People know and feel exactly…”

What is this really?

An unproven collective reference.
Comments are equated with “reality.”

🎯 Technique: Appeal to anonymous public
👉 Loud commenters are elevated to represent society as a whole.

---

🧩 Overall picture – what does this text actually do?

❌ It does not analyze:

• objective data about the snow situation,
• operational priorities,
• institutional responsibility levels.

✅ Instead, it:

• engages in personal character assassination,
• builds emotional identification around outrage,
• pushes the equation communication = incompetence.

---

⚠️ What is the danger?

When crisis management is degraded into a moral question (“working or posting”), then:

• professional debate becomes impossible,
• voters are pushed toward emotion-driven judgment.

This is not a critique of city operations, but political character destruction — following a very familiar pattern.

🤣 Mr. Radnai, the chief bootlicker, has blundered into a topic that is clearly completely foreign to him. According to the puckered-lips guy, utility cost reduction is actually not what it seems to be at all — and it’s not even true that we pay less than we would if we had to pay world-market prices for gas and electricity. In his view, utility cost reduction is not a “black-and-white fairy tale,” and Magyar Péter’s chief bag carrier even writes that “the question is not whether utility cost reduction is needed. The question is why we don’t see the real numbers, and whose business this actually is.”

Then comes the uncomfortable reality, when he asks his followers how much their utility bills have increased in recent years — and almost without exception they write: not at all. So reality paid a visit to Mr. Radnai’s page. You know, that certain forest.

Dear Mr. Márk, esteemed chief puckered-lips bag carrier! Utility cost reduction is in fact exactly what we see. The amount payable — and the very fact that, even according to your own people, utility bills have not increased in recent years — that is reality. This really is black and white, and it’s not even a fairy tale, but the lived reality of Hungarian people. Even if your supporters end up apologizing to you for it.

1️⃣ Personal attacks as an entry point (ad hominem + mockery)

“Mr. Radnai the chief bootlicker,” “the puckered-lips guy,” “the bag carrier”

👉 Function:

• Delegitimization from the very first sentence
• The argument is not attacked; the speaker’s status is
• It pre-labels the target as “not an expert, not competent”

🎯 Propaganda technique:

• Character assassination
• The audience is emotionally primed against the “opponent” even before any debate begins

---

2️⃣ The narrative of exposing false expertise

“clearly stepping into a topic completely foreign to him”

👉 What’s happening?

• No evidence is given for why the topic is supposedly foreign
• The statement is presented as an axiom

🎯 Technique:

• Authoritative assertion: no debate, only qualification
• The criticism is based not on numbers, but on denying competence

---

3️⃣ “Real numbers” as a floated but undefined argument

Quoted claim:

“the question is not whether utility cost reduction is needed, but why we don’t see the real numbers”

👉 What’s the problem?

• It never specifies what the “real numbers” are
• No sources are cited
• No alternative measurement method is defined

🎯 Classic propaganda tool:

• Conceptual vagueness
• The appearance of criticism without specifics
  → “Doubt something, but don’t know exactly what”

---

4️⃣ Loss of control: the comment section as hostile territory

“he asks his followers… almost without exception: not at all”

👉 This is a key moment.

Here is where:

• the narrative collapses
• the speaker’s own audience fails to confirm the pre-fabricated claim

🎯 Why is this dangerous from a propaganda perspective?

• Propaganda relies on a closed information space
• The comment section appears as empirical reality
• Not statistics, but collective experience

---

5️⃣ “Reality paid a visit” – a visual metaphor

“That certain forest, you know.”

👉 Function:

• A classic “can’t see the forest for the trees” metaphor
• The opponent is framed not as malicious, but as blind

🎯 Rhetorical goal:

• Building moral superiority
• Portraying the opponent as mentally incapable of interpreting reality

---

6️⃣ Reversing the black-and-white frame

The opponent:

“it’s not a black-and-white fairy tale”

The response:

“Well, this actually is black and white… not a fairy tale, but reality”

👉 What happens here:

• The criticism is turned back on the original claimant
• A simple, tangible metric is used: the amount to be paid

🎯 Key point:

• This is not a macroeconomic debate
• The argument is made at the level of user experience
• “How much is on the bill?”

---

7️⃣ Closing move: appropriating the legitimacy of the opposing camp

“even according to your own people, it hasn’t increased”

👉 This is the strongest line.

Why?

• It uses the opponent’s internal witnesses
• Not “we say so,” but “your own people say so”

🎯 Anti-propaganda weapon:

• In-group defection
• The narrative cracks from the inside

---

🧠 Overall picture – what is really happening?

This text is not about utility cost reduction itself, but about:

• Undermining the credibility of “expert” criticism
• Contrasting lived reality with abstract explanations
• Framing the comment section as a form of popular referendum

👉 Core message:

What matters is not what you explain — but what people actually end up paying.

“Ask us anything. Anything goes — we’ll answer live on air!”

“In x years, when these videos resurface in front of your child — or your future employer — how will you look them in the eye? Deleting them from Facebook doesn’t mean they disappear everywhere.”

“Imagine that by the end of the year we have established the Hungarian Path Digital Civic Circle, with the aim of building a strong, cohesive community rooted in the traditions of the popular movement, for Hungarians who stand for the ideal of a nation-building state and who care about the future of the entire Hungarian nation.

💪🏻 We are counting on those who believe that serving the national cause is important in the digital space as well; who are willing to act for the interests of the community beyond their own personal success; and who consider it essential to take stock of our roots, preserve our national identity, and modernize the national idea.

Join us.”

The Momentum thugs have really made themselves comfortable in the velvet seats of Parliament. Since they are incapable of doing any actual political work—something they have been proving consistently since 2018—they instead pick fights with opinion leaders and columnists. Frankly, they could do this alongside some kind of civilian job, and then the government could spend taxpayers’ money on something useful instead of on their salaries. 🫢🫢

– Ah, I see the Momentum thugs have arrived, who have now come up with the brilliant idea of bursting back into public attention by plastering the country with posters of Dániel Bohár, Dániel Deák, and Zsolt Bayer. Very brave kids, these ones—behind whom there has been practically zero real political achievement since the moment they came into existence. There is exactly one reason why they are sitting in Parliament today: because back then they managed to prevent Hungary from hosting the Olympics.

So now these shop-window puppets are trying to draw the attention of opposition voters to themselves—and most likely the attention of Péter Magyar as well—so that he won’t forget about them when he puts together the Tisza list. Because, in my view, there are still quite a few people in Momentum who would very much like to continue living very well for another four years, just as they do now, off taxpayers’ money, while doing absolutely no real work.

According to the Momentum crowd, Bohár Dániel, Deák Dániel, and Zsolt Bayer are lying. About what exactly—they don’t specify. What the lies supposedly are—they don’t say that either. Facts don’t really belong to this poster campaign anyway, but by now we already know that facts won’t really be part of this election campaign at all.

What I would actually be curious about is whether the orange star will only have to be worn after the election by everyone who has ever voted for the right, or who is openly a Fidesz supporter, or who has liked a right-wing post—or whether they’ll start handing them out already somewhere in Belpest, maybe around the Inga Café. Because plastering the city with posters of opinion leaders and columnists is just the first step. After that will come branding all those people who dare to openly hold an opinion, or who dare to believe in complex thinking—that things are not black and white but consist of many components—and who are willing to stand by that view. In the eyes of the opposition sectarians, such people will be labeled as dangerous.

And by the way, if they are already talking about lies, they might want to ask their current messiah what’s going on with the fact that he isn’t taking up his mandate. Or what’s going on with that EP document that bore Péter Magyar’s signature, which stated that the European People’s Party would support Ukraine until it defeats Russia. What about that signature—how did it suddenly appear there and then disappear? Because we all know that signatures don’t just randomly appear and vanish on official documents like that.

So what’s going on with these issues, and with the idea of early elections? Bohár Dániel and the others are supposedly lying—but every single word of Péter Magyar is true? Or how exactly is this supposed to work?

1. Enemy construction + dehumanization

“Momentum thugs,” “shop-window puppets,” “opposition sectarians”

This is classic stigmatization:

they are not treated as political opponents,

but as a morally inferior, dangerous group.

👉 The goal: don’t debate them — hate them.

---

2. Denial of performance (proof by assertion)

“Since 2018 they haven’t done any real work”

no data,

no comparison,

no benchmark.

👉 This is not an argument, but a repeated assertion that eventually feels true to the audience.

---

3. Taxpayer envy activation

“they live very well off taxpayers’ money”

This is emotional manipulation:

it doesn’t say what they do wrong,

it suggests that “they are stealing from you.”

👉 Classic populist reflex activation.

---

4. False cause-and-effect

“They can only be sitting there because they blocked the Olympics”

This is logically false:

a parliamentary mandate ≠ an Olympic referendum,

the events are neither legally nor temporally connected.

👉 Retroactive scapegoating.

---

5. Conspiracy insinuation

“They want to attract Péter Magyar’s attention as well”

There is no evidence for this, yet it:

assigns intent,

implies backroom deals.

👉 Unproven motive-reading.

---

6. Relativization of the concept of “lying”

“They say they’re lying — but don’t say about what”

This is partly a valid observation, but:

it does not examine whether something is actually a lie,

it is used solely to delegitimize criticism altogether.

👉 It does not verify — it dismisses.

---

7. Historical paranoia and moral panic

“orange star,” “labeled as dangerous”

This is the most serious part:

veiled historical analogy,

persecution imagery,

slippery-slope argumentation.

👉 The goal: fear, not rationality.

---

8. Establishing a double standard

Bohár Dániel
Deák Dániel
Zsolt Bayer

They are framed as:

“attacked opinion leaders.”

In contrast:

Péter Magyar’s credibility is questioned,

while his actual statements are not analyzed — only a floating “signature myth” is invoked.

👉 This is not a search for truth, but the assignment of credibility by political camp.

---

9. Conscious role reversal

The final trick:

the pro-government opinion leader is recast as a “persecuted free speech warrior,”

despite operating from a position of media dominance.

👉 This is victim posturing from a position of power — one of the most cynical forms of propaganda.

---

🧾 Short summary

This statement:

❌ does not debate,
❌ does not prove,
❌ does not clarify,
✅ incites emotions,
✅ generates fear,
✅ demands loyalty.

This is not political analysis, but identity-protective propaganda speech, whose goal is:

“Don’t think — feel that you are under threat, and know who the enemy is.”

The author describes the beginning of 2026 as a moment of national and spiritual unity, invoking the Hungarian and Székely anthems. She argues that Hungary is entering a decisive year in which “normality-oriented” people (a rebranded version of the political right) must guide the nation toward “sobriety.”

She presents herself as a victim of extreme online hostility, claiming that political opponents wish imprisonment, unemployment, harm to her child, and even violent death upon her. She defines her “crime” as thinking differently and publicly expressing those views under her real name while being paid for her professional work.

From this, she concludes that her opponents are not interested in better governance, infrastructure, or healthcare, but in revenge, violence, and turning Hungarians against Hungarians. She characterizes them as “communists,” “Lenin boys,” and a violent mob incapable of dialogue.

She then pivots to the war in Ukraine, arguing that critics who prioritize economic issues over the war are ignoring reality. She portrays EU leaders as irrationally hostile to peace and complicit in prolonging the conflict by supporting President Zelenskyy, whom she accuses of forcibly sending men to the front.

Finally, she claims that her opponents desire a future where state power is used for revenge, intimidation, and repression, drawing a historical parallel to 1919. The text ends with a call to defeat “the communists” again, asserting that her side represents peace, prosperity, and national survival.

---

What the text actually does (analytical breakdown)

1️⃣ Sacred national framing

National anthems, faith, and the “unbreakable soul” are used to create a moralized national space.

Effect:
Disagreement is implicitly framed as betrayal of the nation rather than political difference.

---

2️⃣ Redefinition of political identity

“Right-wing” is rebranded as “normality-oriented.”

Effect:
Political alignment becomes a question of sanity and morality.
Opponents are, by definition, abnormal.

---

3️⃣ Victimhood as moral shield

Real or alleged online abuse is used to establish total moral innocence.

Effect:
Any criticism can be dismissed as harassment or persecution rather than legitimate disagreement.

---

4️⃣ Total dehumanization of opponents

Opponents are labeled:

• communists
• Lenin boys
• blood-thirsty
• revenge-driven
• historically murderous

Effect:
They are stripped of legitimate political motivation and portrayed as existential enemies.

This is not critique, but moral annihilation.

---

5️⃣ Denial of good-faith disagreement

The text explicitly states that opponents do not want better governance or living standards.

Effect:
No rational debate is possible, because the other side is declared fundamentally evil.

---

6️⃣ War as an all-overriding trump card

The war in Ukraine is used to subordinate all domestic concerns.

Economic decline, corruption, and governance failures are reframed as irrelevant compared to war.

Effect:
Domestic accountability is neutralized through permanent emergency logic.

---

7️⃣ Fear projection and predictive threat

The author claims that if her opponents gain power, violence and repression will inevitably follow.

Effect:
Elections are framed as survival events, not democratic choices.

---

8️⃣ Weaponized historical analogy (1919)

Modern political opponents are equated with historical perpetrators of terror.

Effect:
Voting against the author’s side is morally equated with enabling historical atrocities.

This is emotional blackmail, not history.

---

9️⃣ Messianic closure

The author’s side is presented as:

• the path to peace
• the path to prosperity
• the moral core of the nation

Opponents must be “defeated again.”

Effect:
Politics becomes a moral crusade, not a pluralistic system.

---

Overall assessment

This text is:

• ❌ not reporting
• ❌ not analysis
• ❌ not dialogue

It is:

• ✅ identity-based mobilization
• ✅ fear-driven polarization
• ✅ dehumanization of political opponents
• ✅ moral absolutism disguised as patriotism

---

One-sentence conclusion

The purpose of this text is not to persuade through facts or arguments, but to construct a moral battlefield in which political opponents are portrayed as violent, illegitimate enemies of the nation, thereby justifying permanent fear, loyalty, and exclusion.The author describes the beginning of 2026 as a moment of national and spiritual unity, invoking the Hungarian and Székely anthems. She argues that Hungary is entering a decisive year in which “normality-oriented” people (a rebranded version of the political right) must guide the nation toward “sobriety.”

She presents herself as a victim of extreme online hostility, claiming that political opponents wish imprisonment, unemployment, harm to her child, and even violent death upon her. She defines her “crime” as thinking differently and publicly expressing those views under her real name while being paid for her professional work.

From this, she concludes that her opponents are not interested in better governance, infrastructure, or healthcare, but in revenge, violence, and turning Hungarians against Hungarians. She characterizes them as “communists,” “Lenin boys,” and a violent mob incapable of dialogue.

She then pivots to the war in Ukraine, arguing that critics who prioritize economic issues over the war are ignoring reality. She portrays EU leaders as irrationally hostile to peace and complicit in prolonging the conflict by supporting President Zelenskyy, whom she accuses of forcibly sending men to the front.

Finally, she claims that her opponents desire a future where state power is used for revenge, intimidation, and repression, drawing a historical parallel to 1919. The text ends with a call to defeat “the communists” again, asserting that her side represents peace, prosperity, and national survival.

---

---

One-sentence conclusion

The purpose of this text is not to persuade through facts or arguments, but to construct a moral battlefield in which political opponents are portrayed as violent, illegitimate enemies of the nation, thereby justifying permanent fear, loyalty, and exclusion.

For quite some time we have known — or rather, every sign suggests — that a portion of these “sect members” truly wants a civil war. In public, of course, the “smarter ones” try to hide this, but it’s entirely obvious that they wouldn’t mind an armed seizure of power, and overthrowing the constitutional order would be a cheerful Tuesday pastime for them. Now Puzsér has said out loud what we have already suspected: it is in Péter Magyar’s interest to follow the lawful path only as long as that path remains open for him to gain power. According to Puzsér, the situation may change if that path closes. In that case, Péter Magyar would have to resort to a radical move: he would need to call on Hungarians to paralyze the country.

First of all, we could ask the only logical question when someone says something like this: does this person understand what he is talking about? Does he know what it means to overthrow the constitutional order, or what a civil war emerging from that would entail?

Let me explain.

The shared reality disappears, and people no longer see debate partners, compatriots, or fellow human beings — only enemies. The first consequence of civil war is the disappearance of trust. Not only trust in the state, but trust in one another. Neighbour suspects neighbour, friend suspects friend, family member suspects family member.

The legal order collapses. Laws still exist on paper, but they no longer apply equally to everyone. Vigilantism appears, the “justice of our side” that overrides both the law and universal human values.

Work disappears, supply chains break down, money loses its value. Not in a theoretical sense, but very concretely: no fuel, no medicine, no food. And Mari néni’s hip surgery or the toilet paper shortage in hospitals will be the least of our problems.

Civil war is not heroic — it is misery: queues, freezing homes, shuttered shops, abandoned neighbourhoods. The highest price is always paid by those who never wanted any of it. Children, the elderly, civilians. Civil war does not take place along frontlines, but in housing estates, in villages, around schools.

Fear becomes permanent, and trauma is passed down across generations. A civil war teaches people to fear one another — and that is a knowledge very hard to forget.

That is why it is not romantic, not revolutionary, not liberating — but the deepest form of societal failure.

I cannot emphasize this enough: we must stay vigilant.
They are capable of anything.

---

🧠 1️⃣ “Hidden Intent” Narrative (Sectarian Framing)

Key sentence:

“Every sign suggests that some of these cultists truly want a civil war.”

🔍 Technique: insinuation + collective stigmatization

• No evidence, only “every sign”.
• A heterogeneous political group is renamed a “sect” → dehumanization.
• “Some of them” is a vague phrase: can be applied to anyone.

👉 Function:
Not presenting an opponent → constructing a threat.

---

🧩 2️⃣ Appeal to an Outside Authority (Indirect Threat)

Reference: Róbert Puzsér

🔍 Trick:

• The author doesn’t say it—“just quoting”.
• The harshest conclusion (“paralyze the country”) is outsourced to a third party.
• So the author can say: “I’m only taking this seriously.”

👉 Classic plausible deniability.

---

🧨 3️⃣ Hypothetical Future → Treated as Established Danger

Claim:

“As long as the legal path is open… if it closes…”

🔍 Logical flaw:

• A hypothetical condition becomes an inevitable outcome.
• The “if” disappears, fear remains.

👉 This is slippery slope argumentation.

---

🩸 4️⃣ “Civil War” as an Emotional Shock Package

The second half doesn’t argue—it triggers anxiety:

• collapse of trust
• vigilantism
• food shortages
• medicine shortages
• traumatized children

All of these are possible in a crisis, but:

⚠️ The order is manipulative:

• no demonstrated intent
• no intermediate scenario
• jumps directly to the worst-case outcome

👉 The reader doesn’t evaluate—just feels fear.

---

🎭 5️⃣ Moral Closure: “We Must Stay Vigilant”

Closing line:

“These people are capable of anything.”

🔍 Function:

• Total moral exclusion.
• No debate, no nuance.
• “Staying vigilant” becomes a license for permanent suspicion.

👉 Not a warning—an authorization to ostracize.

---

⚖️ 6️⃣ What’s conspicuously missing?

• Any specific quote from Magyar Péter calling for violence or unconstitutional action
• Legal analysis
• Proportionality
• Alternative explanations

📌 The text doesn’t refute—it pre-judges.

---

🧠 One-sentence summary

This piece isn’t arguing against civil war—it uses fear to delegitimize a political opponent while normalizing the very social distrust it presents as a threat.

After Magyar Péter called on Orbán Viktor yesterday to resign over the Szőlő Street scandal and demanded that the President immediately call early elections, the Tisza sect, naturally following its leader, went into a frenzy and began demanding the government’s resignation on social media.
Of course, it is important that proper investigations take place regarding the Szőlő Street case to clarify exactly what happened there, but there are a few things that need to be kept in mind and put in order.

This is not a children’s home, and not an orphanage; it is a juvenile correctional facility, where children are placed who have committed crimes. Naturally, this does not mean that anything can be done to them, but it must also be understood that the situation may be stricter precisely because these are juvenile offenders. One should not believe the propaganda.

I will roughly try to explain how they are attempting to tie this whole affair to Orbán Viktor. The Szőlő Street correctional institution is a state institution, yes. So: state equals government equals Orbán Viktor.
This is somewhat like saying that if a BKV bus driver were to run over or hit a pedestrian waiting at a crosswalk because he wasn’t paying attention, the angry crowd would then blame Karácsony Gergely and immediately demand the mayor’s resignation. Totally logical, right? BKV, Budapest public transport, Mayor of Budapest — makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

So the current left-wing narrative, as you said, is that if someone commits a crime or abuse within a state institution, that is equivalent to Orbán Viktor personally committing that crime.

They also want to make you believe that they were the ones who uncovered the case, but this too is an outright lie, because it must be known that an investigation into this matter has been ongoing for quite some time.

Obviously, figures like Magyar Péter and Juhász Péter were pulled out from the bottom of the trash bin precisely so that they could incite the Hungarian public with cases like this. It seems that this is working to some extent, but thankfully they have not managed to deceive the majority once again.
No, the government does not need to resign, and Orbán Viktor does not need to resign because of the Szőlő Street scandal — but the investigations, as we have already said, must be carried out.

1️⃣ Framing: “hysteria” vs. “common sense”

Opening move:

“The Tisza sect has gone mad… they are demanding the government’s resignation…”

🎯 Function

• Immediately downplays the substantive seriousness of the case.
• Portrays protesters as an irrational mob.
• Pre-decides who is speaking “rationally” and who is “hysterically.”

👉 This is not a rebuttal, but character assassination.

---

2️⃣ Dehumanization of children (“juvenile offenders”)

“This is not a children’s home… but a correctional facility… juvenile offenders.”

⚠️ Key trick

• Legally true → morally misleading.
• Implicit message: strictness is “understandable,” abuse appears in a “different light.”

📌 What is omitted:

Minors in correctional facilities are still entitled to:

• human dignity
• protection from abuse
• prohibition of torture

These rights are non-negotiable.

👉 This is the gateway to victim-blaming.

---

3️⃣ Strawman argument in defense of Orbán Viktor

“The left-wing narrative says that if something happens in a state institution, it means Orbán Viktor did it.”

🧠 This is false.
The criticism is not that Orbán personally committed the acts, but that:

• the institution is state-run,
• the system operates under his government,
• supervisory and oversight responsibility exists at the political level.

👉 The propagandist deliberately simplifies the argument, then refutes this absurd version.

This is a strawman fallacy.

---

4️⃣ False analogy: BKV bus vs. child abuse

“As if a BKV driver hit someone and Karácsony Gergely were blamed…”

🚨 Why it’s false

A one-off traffic accident ≠
an institutional abuse case involving:

• a closed system,
• vulnerable minors,
• alleged long-term systemic misconduct.

👉 This is emotional minimization, not an argument.

(And yes: Karácsony Gergely’s name appears here purely as a distraction.)

---

5️⃣ “The investigation has been ongoing for a long time” – reassurance without evidence

“The investigation has been going on for quite some time.”

🧠 Propaganda function

• “Nothing to see here.”
• “The system is working.”
• “No further questions needed.”

📌 But:

• no dates,
• no authority named,
• no results cited.

👉 This is a sedative narrative, not information.

---

6️⃣ Enemy construction: demonizing individuals

“Magyar Péter and Juhász Péter were pulled out of the trash bin…”

🎯 Goal

• Turn a systemic issue into a personal political attack.
• Divert attention away from:
  • abuse,
  • institutional responsibility.

Here appear:

• Magyar Péter
• Juhász Péter

👉 The focus shifts from claims to claimants.

---

7️⃣ Closing move: “no resignation needed, but let’s investigate”

This is the most typical whitewashing ending:

• moral responsibility: ❌
• political consequences: ❌
• structural questions: ❌
• “investigation”: ✔️ (abstract, timeless)

👉 This allows simulated outrage while avoiding accountability.

---

🔚 Summary – what is really happening?

This text:

• relativizes child abuse,
• dehumanizes the affected children,
• defends power through false analogies,
• manufactures enemies to divert focus,
• invokes vague investigations as cover.

📌 The real core message is:

“No one needs to resign – the system is fine.”

This is not information.
This is system-defense propaganda in moral language.