Compared to 2010, wages in Hungary have seen the third largest increase in the entire European Union. There are 13 trillion forints in the retail current and savings accounts. Hungary has the highest savings rate in the EU relative to income. In 2010, there were roughly 2.9 million cars in Hungary. Today, that number has grown to 4.3 million.
Car “success” communication? The reality tells a different story…
The government proudly highlights: ➡️ 2010: 299 passenger cars per 1,000 inhabitants ➡️ 2023: 435 passenger cars per 1,000 inhabitants
🛑 But here’s the catch! • In 2010, Hungary was the 5th worst in Europe • In 2023, we are the 6th worst
👉 So we were already at the bottom — and we’ve slipped even further down.
And there’s more: 🚗 The average age of cars in Hungary: 15+ years → One of the oldest fleets in all of Europe → No modernization — just survival
📌 More cars ≠ better quality of life 📌 More cars ≠ economic success 📌 More cars ≠ better transport policy
If we really wanted something to be proud of, it would be: ✔ safer cars on the roads ✔ a more sustainable transport system ✔ not being stuck at the bottom of the European ranking
It’s a problem that they live in such a different world. Thankfully, I don’t have many relatives who support Tisza, but the few that do are on such a completely different wavelength that you just can’t have a normal conversation with them. Honestly, they’ll even take a comment like “this schnitzel tastes good” as proof that you’re a Fidesz shill.
🎭 1️⃣ Constructing a Caricature Enemy
“Relatives who support Tisza… they live in a different universe”
👉 The opponent is not a debate partner but a cartoonish figure. It doesn’t refute concrete arguments — it assigns a mental state (“you literally can’t talk to them”).
Function:
portray the opponent as irrational,
shut down debate before it even starts.
🧠 2️⃣ Normalizing Cognitive Isolation
“Luckily I don’t have many relatives who support Tisza”
👉 Extending political tribal logic into family relationships. Implicit message:
Are you under 25 and working? The Tisza Party would tax you too. They want to abolish the tax exemption for young people. That would be unfair, since this is a huge help for everyone at the start of their lives. This exemption means nearly 1 million forints a year for a young person under 25. Fill out the National Consultation and let’s stand up together for the tax exemption of young people in Pesterzsébet!
🧩 1️⃣ Targeted address → identification trap
“Are you under 25 and working?”
👉 Technically micro-targeting:
specific age specific status (you are employed)
The audience instantly feels personally affected before any evidence is presented.
🧩 2️⃣ Conditional future presented as fact
“The opposition would tax you too.”
👉 Manipulation:
no if, no maybe no law, no date, no source
A hypothetical political intention is framed as a confirmed fact.
➡️ This is classic loss framing.
🧩 3️⃣ Abstract “they” → demonized enemy
“They want to abolish it…”
👉 Unspecified:
who when where in what form
“They” is a vague threat — you can only react emotionally, not rationally.
🧩 4️⃣ Moral closure that blocks debate
“That would be unfair.”
👉 Not an argument, a moral verdict:
no counter-argument possible no alternatives mentioned
Function: 👉 if you disagree, you are unfair.
🧩 5️⃣ Inflated number → fear anchor
“Nearly 1 million forints per year.”
👉 Classic number-mysticism:
gross amount impact no context (average? maximum? under what conditions?)
The number cannot be verified, but it shocks emotionally.
Dear Tisza supporters, your beloved country will cost you even the shirts off your backs — and even if you don’t believe it, it will still happen. Just trust your own eyes already.
For example, here’s little Gábor, and here’s Vaszilij. Because of the two of them, we would have to pay 36,000 forints a year in taxes if Tisza’s grand economic plan came to life. But that’s not even the worst part. Let’s stick to the most ordinary concerns of everyday people: when you’re sad because Tisza is turning this into a shitty country, how will you get drunk at home in silence if booze becomes so expensive that you won’t even be able to buy a bottle of La Fiesta?
Of course, the comment-prime-minister’s marketing agent has already stated that this is all lies, none of it is true — but soon you will experience on your own skin that they’ll strip not only the country, but every single Hungarian down to the bone. It’s written down, black and white.
Naturally, we all knew what the official explanation of the Savior would be: that the Fidesz actually wrote and leaked this, and that this economic plan doesn’t even exist. But the truth is: this economic plan does exist — and it will ruin your lives.
You can sling mud at us as much as you like — we still won’t let them turn this wonderful country into a poor, slum-ridden Hungary.
1️⃣ Vision of Total Impoverishment
“…you’ll even lose the shirt on your back…”
It predicts absolute, irreversible disaster.
There is no condition, no “if,” no alternative. 👉 Goal: paralyzing fear, not rational evaluation.
2️⃣ Fictional Example (“Gáborka and Vaszilij”)
“…36,000 forints in taxes per year after the two of them…”
A number that looks precise → illusion of credibility.
No source, no law, no calculation shown. 👉 Technique: number-mysticism + relatable characters = “this will happen to you.”
3️⃣ Lifestyle Humiliation
“…how will you get drunk at home…”
The voter is infantilized and reduced to an alcoholic caricature.
Not economic policy — cultural contempt. 👉 Message: “You are not a citizen, you are driven by primitive impulses.”
4️⃣ Pre-emptive Neutralization of Fact-Checking
“…the marketing agent PM will say it’s a lie…”
Any rebuttal is discredited in advance.
Whatever comes later automatically becomes “excuse.” 👉 One of propaganda’s strongest shields.
5️⃣ “Written Black and White” — Without a Source
Classic mythical-document rhetoric:
no page no title no link 👉 The narrative of a “secret but absolutely real paper.”
6️⃣ Messianic Framing
“…the official explanation of The Saviour…”
Religious metaphor → cult-like logic.
Dissent = lack of faith, not a rational stance. 👉 Polarization: “We are the enlightened ones.”
7️⃣ Moral Self-Absolution & Hero Posturing
“…we still won’t let it happen…”
Our side = heroic, morally superior. Other side = “slum Hungary.” 👉 Moral blackmail: if you’re not with us, you’re against the country.
🧠 Overall Picture
This is not journalism. It’s:
fear-mongering
dehumanization
stacking unsubstantiated claims
building immunity against criticism
The goal isn’t persuasion — it’s triggering reflexes:
Anger. Shame. Fear. And ultimately, obedience/loyalty.
It has finally become clear why the Tisza Party has been keeping things secret. They are preparing massive tax hikes. According to a leaked document running hundreds of pages, they want to take 1,300 billion forints from people every year.
Aggressive taxation.
Cuts to family tax benefits, introduction of a wealth tax.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg — everyone would feel the impact very sharply. The old, well-known left-wing record, repackaged. This is Tisza.
1️⃣ “Leaked document” as an unsubstantiated accusation
“it emerged from a leaked document hundreds of pages long”
❌ Missing:
the document’s title
its author
its date
its source
any public reference
👉 Function: creating the appearance of credibility without evidence. This is classic insinuation (“there is something, but we won’t show it”).
2️⃣ A concrete number → uncontrollable panic
“they want to take 1,300 billion per year”
This is a round, shocking figure, but:
no tax type is specified
no breakdown is provided
no timeframe is defined
no draft legislation is referenced
👉 Psychological goal: not verifiability, but immediate emotional reaction (“this is brutal!”).
3️⃣ Labels instead of facts
“Aggressive taxation” “the old left-wing record”
These are not policy statements, but:
emotional labels,
ideological trigger words.
👉 Goal: don’t think — just recognize an “enemy pattern.”
4️⃣ Family as a shield
“cuts to family tax benefits”
This is a red flag dropped without evidence:
no figures,
no proposal,
no quotation.
👉 Effect: anyone who disputes it appears “anti-family.”
5️⃣ “Tip of the iceberg” – the infinite threat technique
“this is only the tip of the iceberg”
This is an uncloseable accusation:
you never have to reveal everything,
you can always add more later.
👉 A key propaganda tool: maintaining constant fear.
6️⃣ Identity replacement instead of a program
“This is Tisza.”
No program is presented — only labeling. The entire logic of the text is:
“left-wing = tax hikes = bad.”
👉 This is not debate, but tribal mobilization.
🎯 One-sentence summary
This is not information, but ➡️ unproven accusations + emotional trigger words + an enemy image + an open-ended threat.
Exactly the genre used by a Fidesz-adjacent propagandist when there are:
Thanks — Donald Trump blocked the utility price hike planned by Brussels and the Tisza Party, and with the successful U.S.–Hungarian summit you managed to push Fidesz’s lead over Tisza to 10 percent in the opinion polls. It’s 50–40 in favor of Fidesz — details in the comments.
“The incitement we have seen over the past year and a half, while Péter Magyar talks so much about division and repeatedly says that he wants to build a ‘country of love’ — well, over the past year and a half I have experienced exactly the opposite.”
1️⃣ “Incitement” as a Floating Accusation
Keyword:incitement
A term with strong emotional charge, but no concrete content.
There is no:
specific event
quotation
date
clearly named action
👉 Function: it creates a negative emotional impression without making a claim that can be verified or refuted. This is a classic insinuation technique.
2️⃣ Framing a Moral Double Standard
The core logic of the sentence is:
“He says X → but I have experienced the opposite.”
This is not evidence, but self-legitimation through personal experience.
The speaker’s own perception becomes the benchmark
The audience is not required to verify anything
👉 Implicit message: “Don’t believe what he says—believe me.”
3️⃣ “Country of Love” as an Inverted Narrative
“Country of love” is a positive, normative concept. The technique here is subtle:
it does not say the program is bad
it says the speaker is hypocritical
👉 This is moral character assassination, not political debate:
“Nice words, but in reality he incites.”
4️⃣ Time Span as a Credibility Device
“over the past year and a half”
long enough to suggest a systemic pattern
vague enough to avoid accountability
👉 A classic example of rhetorical time framing.
5️⃣ The Overall Picture – What the Sentence Actually Does
✔️ It does not refute a claim ✔️ It does not analyze concrete actions ✔️ It does not engage with policy or program
“No, this really can’t be believed anymore. Another Tisza Party candidate has surfaced whose Facebook bio was changed at dawn. So it used to say something like, ‘All my life I’ve dreamed of revitalizing the area around Mátészalka,’ that got crossed out, and suddenly it became, ‘All my life I’ve been waiting to revitalize the area around Körmend,’ and now they’re running this candidate in Vas County.
It’s unserious, amateurish, and embarrassing — just like their boss.
They’re a Brussels puppet, and these people are merely the local puppets of Brussels puppets, just waiting to carry out orders from Brussels.
We won’t allow it.”
1️⃣ “Facebook editing” as pseudo-evidence
“They changed the Facebook bio at dawn.”
What is actually happening?
A technical detail is being framed as a “revelation.”
What is not shown:
screenshots,
timestamps,
previous versions,
sources.
👉 Suggestion replaces proof: if it happened “at night” → it must be secret → therefore suspicious → therefore a lie.
This is a classic insinuative argument.
2️⃣ Territorial mobility → moral disqualification
“Mátészalka… Körmend… Vas County”
Rhetorical trick:
A perfectly legal and politically common practice (running in a different constituency)
is framed as identity fraud.
👉 The unspoken message:
“Doesn’t belong here → not one of us → not authentic.”
This is a weaponized local identity, not a political argument.
3️⃣ Labeling instead of argument
“Unserious, amateurish, embarrassing”
This is:
not a claim,
not a rebuttal,
not an analysis.
This is labeling.
👉 The goal is not thinking, but triggering an emotional reflex: shame – contempt – rejection.
4️⃣ Hierarchical ad hominem (“like their boss”)
“Like their boss”
Key point:
He speaks about the candidates, then suddenly shifts into an attack based on personal loyalty.
👉 The message:
“They aren’t independent individuals, just parts of a flawed system.”
This is collective delegitimization.
5️⃣ “Brussels puppet” – absolute delegitimization
“Brussels puppet… local puppets… carrying out orders”
This is the ideological climax of the speech.
Why is it such a powerful weapon?
It does not debate programs.
It does not examine facts.
It withdraws political sovereignty.
👉 What the “puppet” narrative means:
no independent will,
no legitimate decision-making,
no real representation.
This is political dehumanization, in a refined form.
6️⃣ Closing: “We will not allow it.”
This is not information — it is a mobilizing command.
👉 The function of the speech:
not informing,
not debating,
but maintaining camp discipline.
🧠 Overall picture
This statement:
❌ does not refute, ❌ does not analyze, ❌ does not prove,
We know exactly that we—the next generation—can build on the work you have done, that this society can stand on the shoulders of what you have accomplished through decades of extremely hard, diligent, and wholehearted effort, and continue to do even today. Countless grandmothers, grandfathers, and even great-grandparents still play an essential and fundamental role in families to this day.
I can honestly tell you that I myself would not be able to do this work if my parents were not there, and if my grandparents were not there either, helping me on a daily basis to balance my work with raising my young daughter.
May God grant you long life—may you stay with us for many years to come, in strength and good health. I truly hope that the Gondosóra program can contribute to this as much as possible, and that this device can help save as many lives as possible.
And please allow me, here during Advent, to wish you in advance a warm, peaceful, and calm Christmas spent with your families, filled with health and serenity.
This statement is a classic, carefully constructed paternalistic–emotional speech that operates on multiple levels at the same time.
1️⃣ Generational legitimation (“we stand on your shoulders”)
“the next generation can build on the work you have done”
This is a moral authorization technique:
the older generation is endowed with moral capital,
the current political direction appears as continuity,
any criticism implicitly looks like ingratitude.
👉 Message: whoever is with us respects grandparents and the family.
2️⃣ Family self-disclosure as a credibility tool
“I couldn’t do this work if it weren’t for my parents and grandparents”
This is controlled personal disclosure:
not vulnerability,
not conflict,
but a model citizen narrative.
👉 The politician is not an exception, but “living the same life as everyone else.”
This is especially effective with an elderly audience because it:
acknowledges their help,
morally elevates their role.
3️⃣ The care device as an emotional bridge (not a technical policy)
“this device can save as many lives as possible”
What is notably missing:
no data,
no costs,
no operational challenges.
👉 The care device is not presented as a state instrument, but as:
a symbol of care,
an object of reassurance,
a metaphor of “the state = family.”
This is emotional policy marketing, not public policy.
4️⃣ Religious–festive framing
“God bless you… during Advent… peaceful Christmas”
This creates cultural closure:
Christian language,
festive timing,
a shared value space.
👉 The speech closes off debate, because anyone outside it “doesn’t feel the moment.”
5️⃣ What is not said – and this is the key
There is no mention of:
the financial situation of the elderly,
the condition of healthcare,
the burden on elderly care systems,
the caregiving responsibility shifted onto families.
👉 Real systemic strain is replaced with emotional recognition.
🎯 Summary – what is this speech for?
This speech:
✔️ reassures ✔️ signals appreciation ✔️ legitimizes a program ❌ but does not solve structural problems
This is not manipulation in an aggressive sense, but rather soft paternalism + emotional consolidation.
He says that he would have already presented his 106 individual parliamentary candidates, but he was waiting for the governing parties to present theirs first. Now he says he won’t wait any longer, so supposedly we just have to wait a little bit more and then he’ll present his own — or something like that.
He’s lying, rambling, and deflecting. He has no one. Not a single credible person is willing to stand with him, and those who were there just signed the so-called anti-war petition, and that’s it.
🔍 Communication Breakdown
1️⃣ Discrediting without evidence
“He’s lying, rambling, deflecting — he has no one.”
This is an assertion, not an argument. – No data – No names – No verifiable facts
👉 The goal is not refutation, but pre-emptive erosion of trust.
2️⃣ Time-framing as deliberate vagueness
“You only have to wait a little longer and he’ll present them… or whatever.”
This is a technique of sarcastic relativization: – it does not deny that a candidate list will exist – it merely implies that it never will
👉 It plants uncertainty and ridicule in the audience.
3️⃣ Isolation narrative
“Not a single credible person will even talk to him.”
This withdraws social legitimacy: – it does not attack the program – it does not attack the candidates – it creates the impression that “everyone has turned away”
👉 Classic psychological pressure: “Don’t stand with him, or you’ll be alone.”
4️⃣ Labeling an entire group by a single act
“And whoever was there signed the anti-war petition — that’s it.”
This is reductive framing: – an entire political community is reduced to one gesture – diversity, motivations, and context are erased
👉 This is how a political camp is turned into a caricature.
🎯 What does this speech actually do?
It does not inform — it launches a pre-emptive attack:
– it anticipates the candidate announcement – undermines its credibility in advance – builds an emotional reflex (“this will be fake anyway”)
This is especially typical when the other side does not respond to provocation and refuses to engage in personal attacks.
🧠 Meta-level observation
In Németh Balázs’s case, this style is not spontaneous emotion but role performance: – provocation – mockery – personal attacks – “inside jokes” for the in-group
The goal is not to persuade the opponent, but to activate and energize one’s own audience.
