Tag: facebook propaganda

Király Nóra….

Király Nóra
“For 15 years, we have been building a family-friendly Hungary. 🇭🇺”

“Another example of how the poverty of families is being normalised and framed in a way that encourages people to accept poverty as the ‘normal’ condition.”

“When it comes to nurseries, at least for me, the figure was striking that over the past 15 years the number of nursery places has more than doubled—more than doubled.”

📉 1) Demographic trend: fewer children are being born in Hungary

According to data from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH):

  • In 2010, approximately 90,335 children were born in Hungary.
  • In 2024, around 77,500 children were born – considered a historic low.

This shows that over roughly ten years, about 14,000 fewer children are born each year, while the total population continues to decline.

What does this mean?
Families are having fewer children—and this trend cannot be offset on its own by nursery provision or institutional development.

🧸 2) Nursery care: more institutions, more capacity

Both the number of nursery facilities and the number of places available have increased significantly:

  • Around 2010, there were approximately 32,500 nursery places.
  • By 2024, this number had risen to about 68,828.

➡️ This represents at least a doubling of capacity.

What does this mean?
More nursery places have been created, services have become more accessible in many areas (e.g. mini-nurseries, family nurseries, workplace nurseries), and overall coverage has expanded.

🤔 3) What is the relationship between declining births and expanding nursery care?

❗ 3.1 More nurseries ≠ more children

Despite the expansion of nursery capacity:

  • the number of births continues to decline,
  • the increase in nursery places has not led to a rise in the number of children.

This highlights that expanding nursery capacity alone does not solve demographic problems.

👉 In other words, the lack of nursery places is not the main cause of declining birth rates.

💼 4) The current social context of nursery care

❗ 4.1 Nursery care is not mandatory, but a labour-market support tool

The primary purpose of nursery services is not to increase birth rates automatically, but to enable parents—especially mothers—to return to work.

This matters because:

  • public discourse often presents nurseries as a “solution” to encourage childbearing,
  • in reality, they mainly support labour-market participation, not necessarily the willingness to have children.

📌 5) Social narratives around poverty and demand for nursery care

❗ 5.1 The “normalisation of poverty” and nursery demand

Statistics show that although nursery capacity has expanded:

  • birth rates continue to fall,
  • increased capacity does not translate into more children being born.

➡️ This may indicate that today’s growing demand for nursery care is not primarily driven by positive choice, but rather by:

  • social and financial pressure,
  • the need—especially among lower-income families—to reconcile work and family life through institutional care.

This social framing may normalise the idea that nursery care is “essential for every family,” while in reality a significant proportion of families are forced to rely on it for financial reasons.

the Hungarian people are being conditioned to accept poverty as normal.

Viktor Orbán, Tények:

If this government remains in power, Hungarians will continue to pay the lowest household utility costs in Europe. If Tisza wins, the utility price cuts will come to an end, and Hungarian families would find themselves in a very difficult situation.

Everyone would happily pay the prices common in Europe if wages and everything else were at the same level.
But at present, the Hungarian people are being conditioned to accept poverty as normal.

Alexandra Szentkirályi spoke about water costing 200 vs. 600 forints,
while István Nagy talked about chips costing 300 vs. 600 forints,
both effectively claiming that 200–300 forints is more than good enough for Hungarians, and that they shouldn’t even aspire to anything better.

Journalist Dóra Dezse-Zelenka — and Fidesz can’t be stopped. (2025.12.22)

I’ve noticed something strange. So we are being branded as “pedo-Fidesz,” even though everyone who had anything to do with, for example, the pardon scandal resigned from their positions and withdrew from public life—most of them without even being pressured to do so. They did this partly because they themselves acknowledged their “guilt,” and partly because we on the right also made it clear in countless writings why the case was unacceptable and why everyone who granted clemency to a man who was not himself a pedophile but assisted the crimes of a pedophile must bear responsibility. According to the uninformed, we are the “pedo-Fidesz” ones because under the Orbán government Gábor Kaleta—who had been made a diplomat under the previous administration—was exposed, and he received a shockingly light sentence from judges who otherwise protest against the government and of whom quite a few were caught having downloaded the Tisza app. Isn’t that strange? We are being called “pedo-Fidesz” by people who didn’t even blink when we reported that adult men, dressed up as women in grotesque makeup, are already presenting themselves to children in kindergartens abroad. We spoke out against this as well; you stayed silent. Now I read that, according to Magyar Peti, the authorities never even declared that Márk Lakatos had abused a 13-year-old child at the time. That, however, is a blatant lie. Magyar Peti’s sect calls us “pedo-Fidesz,” while it has been established that one of “Uncle” Ervin Nagy’s closest friends abused a 13-year-old child. No matter how much anyone lies about it, there is documentation of this. No one has distanced themselves from that friend, and the “child-protection” influencers are still silent. Then along comes the great, brave DPK “questioner,” who asks Orbán and Lázár why they don’t protect every single child on Earth, and when the minister and the prime minister explain point by point that they cannot prevent every crime but they can punish them, the “brave warrior” suddenly goes deaf and no longer hears the answer. The fact is that there are figures and statistics showing how many proven pedophile offenders have been sent to prison since 2010, and this is because they are now actually being caught and punished. They may not receive life sentences, but once these parasites are released, alongside the public pedophile registry we wish them “good luck” integrating back into society. So I don’t know who the pedophile-apologists are: those who put actual offenders behind bars and hold accountable those connected to such crimes, or those who are unwilling even to name the crimes of a specific, proven pedophile because he happens to be their activist at the moment. And as for those who see pedophile crimes behind every bush, I recommend a psychologist. This is not a party-political or campaign topic. A normal person condemns such crimes, supports having the police investigate every case and the courts pass judgment, rather than using it as a comment-storm weapon simply because they dislike the opinion they’ve read.
(As for L. Márk, the fact that such crimes could be subject to the statute of limitations is disgustingly outrageous. Unfortunately, laws cannot be changed retroactively, but at least as of the summer of 2024 it has been fixed in law that sexual crimes committed against minors never expire.)

The text is a classic, multi-layered piece of propaganda, even though it superficially appeals to “facts” and “moral outrage.” Below is a structured evaluation from rhetorical and logical perspectives.

1️⃣ Core framing: victimhood + counterattack

The fundamental claim of the entire text is this:

“We are being baselessly labeled as ‘pedo-Fidesz,’ while in fact we are the real protectors of children.”

This does not examine whether the criticism is justified; instead, it starts with moral self-exoneration.
This is a typical propaganda opening: it does not clarify the issue, it defends identity.

2️⃣ Deliberate conflation of concepts (a classic trick)

The text constantly conflates:

  • political responsibility
  • criminal liability
  • moral responsibility

Example:

“They resigned, they admitted their guilt.”

👉 Resignation ≠ legal accountability
👉 “Admission” ≠ a court verdict

This is a rhetorical maneuver designed to suggest that the system is functioning properly, while in reality it was the system itself that produced the scandal.

3️⃣ Selective shifting of blame (judges, “the left,” apps)

This is one of the most serious manipulations:

“They received light sentences from judges who protest and downloaded the Tisza app.”

❌ Unproven connections
❌ Scapegoating
❌ Delegitimization of the justice system

This is dangerous propaganda because it:

  • undermines trust in the rule of law,
  • attempts to interpret judicial decisions through political loyalty.

4️⃣ Classic “whataboutism” (deflection)

Whenever the text should address concrete cases, it shifts the topic:

  • “abroad, makeup-wearing men in kindergartens”
  • “but others did worse”
  • “you stayed silent”

👉 Completely unrelated to the Hungarian cases in question
👉 Emotional panic-mongering, not fact-finding

This is a core pattern of Russian–Hungarian propaganda:
if you can’t defend the issue → drag the debate into moral mud-slinging.

5️⃣ Double standards — revealing by their own logic

One key sentence stands out:

“There was no final court ruling.”

Then, just a few lines later:

“There is paperwork proving it.”

❗ From the same author:

  • at one moment, only a final verdict is acceptable;
  • at another, a mere “document” is sufficient.

This internal contradiction is typical of propaganda:
👉 the standard depends entirely on who is being accused.

6️⃣ Dehumanizing language (deliberate emotional overload)

Words used:

  • “animal”
  • “vermin”
  • “disgusting”
  • “needs a psychologist”

This language:

  • shuts down debate,
  • forces emotional reactions,
  • blocks sober analysis.

The goal is not truth, but tribal identification.

7️⃣ False concluding dilemma

The ending presents a false binary:

“Who are the pedophile apologists? Us, who put them in prison, or them?”

This is a logical distortion, because:

  • the criticism is not against punishment,
  • it is against the political whitewashing of responsibility.

The two do not exclude each other.

8️⃣ The only true statement — and even that is incidental

At the end, this claim is correct:

“Sexual crimes against minors do not expire under the statute of limitations.”

✔️ Factually true
❌ But it does not absolve the handling of past cases
❌ And it does not answer the pardon scandal

Summary — in one sentence

This is not a text about child protection; it is political identity defense built on panic-mongering, deflection, and double standards.

The goal is:

  • not truth,
  • not the victims,
  • but the preservation of the “us vs. them” narrative.

— Viktor Orbán —

“The stake of next year’s election is which path we want to continue on. There are two paths before us: the Brussels path, through which our money is taken elsewhere to serve others’ development. The other path is to stay on the Hungarian path, as we have for the past 15 years, and then our country will continue to develop, grow, and become stronger.”

They simply can’t make a mistake 😄

propaganda cant stop at 2025.12.22…

Szentkirályi Alexandra

❗ In Hungary, let us keep Christmas as Christmas! ❗

We take it for granted, but it is far from natural anymore: in fewer and fewer European countries are Christmas markets being held, and in many places Christmas is no longer even called Christmas.

Western Europe is on the path of self-denial, retreating from its own culture and traditions.

❌ Because of the consequences of migration, in many places they no longer dare to hold Christmas markets. At the same time, security costs have skyrocketed and the fear of terrorism has become part of everyday life.

❌ What is more, in many places they no longer even dare to say the word “Christmas,” replacing it with various politically correct terms such as “winter holiday,” “tree festival,” or “festival of lights.”

As if native Europeans had become strangers in their own homelands.

🟧 In Hungary, we can go to Christmas markets, call them Christmas markets, and we do not have to fear that someone will drive a vehicle into the crowd.

We take this for granted — but sadly, in much of Europe it no longer is. More than 10 years ago, we consciously said no to illegal migration and to the abandonment of our own culture. ❗

🔴 Western Europe did not do this, and now we can see where each path has led.

Even today, we cannot allow illegal migrants who do not respect our traditions to be forced upon us against our will — which is why we also reject the migration pact.

In Hungary, Christmas must always remain Christmas!

Na, európaiak!

Ezt kapjátok a képetekbe karácsonykor! 🇪🇺🎄

Az őrület ugyanis ma szintet lépett.

Valami licit lehet az európai elitben, hogy ki tud durvábbat mondani az ukrán háborús szerepvállalásról.

Volt itt már minden:

👉 kötelező sorkatonaság,

👉 “fiaink és lányaik felkészítése a harcra”,

👉 árvák és özvegyek emlegetése. ⚰️

👉 milliók kitelepítésének terve

👉 olyan háború képe, amilyet a nagy- és dédszüleink vívtak.

Erre most jön a NATO főtitkára és újra beszáll a versenybe.

❗️Mark Rutte szerint:

“Európa kész katonákat küldeni Ukrajnába, már csak a részleteket dolgozzák ki, hogy miként nézne ki egy szárazföldi, tengeri vagy légi bevetés, és biztos benne, hogy a fiatalok készek lesznek fegyvert fogni”.

Amúgy meg békés karácsonyt, lehet, hogy ez lesz az utolsó.

Rutte uram! A NATO nem egy támadó, hanem egy védelmi szövetség.

Agyrém, hogy akiknek a béketeremtéshez nincs elég képességük, azok a háborúban látják a kiutat.

Well then, Europeans!
This is what you’re getting shoved in your face at Christmas! 🇪🇺🎄

The madness has reached a new level today.
It feels like there’s some kind of bidding war among the European elite over who can say the most extreme thing about involvement in the war in Ukraine.

We’ve already heard everything:
👉 mandatory conscription,
👉 “preparing our sons and daughters for combat,”
👉 talk of orphans and widows. ⚰️
👉 plans to relocate millions,
👉 visions of a war like the one our grandparents and great-grandparents fought.

And now the NATO Secretary General joins the competition once again.

❗️According to Mark Rutte:
“Europe is ready to send troops to Ukraine; only the details are still being worked out—what a land, sea, or air deployment would look like—and he is confident that young people will be ready to take up arms.”

Anyway, have a peaceful Christmas—this one might be the last.

Mr. Rutte! NATO is not an offensive alliance, but a defensive one.

What is it really trying to say?

The text is not about Mark Rutte’s actual message. It is about constructing a war-panic narrative, in which Rutte is merely a tool.

1️⃣ “Madness”, “bidding war”, “a new level”

This is framing.

It suggests that:

  • the “European elite” has collectively lost its mind,
  • they are outbidding each other to drag Europe into war,
  • there is no sober, rational thinking left.

👉 This is enemy construction, not analysis.

2️⃣ Deliberate list-shock

👉 compulsory conscription
👉 our sons and daughters fighting
👉 orphans and widows
👉 mass displacement
👉 images of world wars

This is a classic propaganda technique:

  • items of very different scale and factual basis are placed in a single list,
  • so in the reader’s mind they merge into one inevitable chain of events.

💣 No evidence. No sources. Only emotional overload.

3️⃣ Mark Rutte as a “trophy”

Rutte’s quote appears:

  • taken out of context,
  • maximally dramatized,
  • stripped of nuance.

The goal is not to understand what he said, but to create the feeling that:

“See? Even NATO wants war.”

4️⃣ “This will be the last Christmas”

This is outright psychological pressure:

  • existential fear,
  • doomsday atmosphere,
  • “you must choose sides now”.

📌 This is not a political claim — it is emotional coercion.

5️⃣ The NATO sentence: half true, fully manipulated

“NATO is not an offensive alliance, but a defensive one.”

This is true in itself —
but here it is used as a rhetorical weapon, while:

  • NATO’s decision-making mechanisms are not explained,
  • political statements are not separated from actual military action,
  • legal constraints, veto rights, and consensus rules are ignored.

👉 Straw-man argumentation: it fights a simplified, fabricated enemy.

One-sentence summary:

This text is not about what is happening — it is about what you should fear, and who you should blame for it.

Not analysis.
Not information.
But internal mobilization propaganda + panic-mongering.

And yes — ironically, it works exactly like a badly parameterized ChatGPT prompt 😄

cant stop…

“So hi everyone, did you really distinguish yourselves?

I saw yesterday that everyone was there — all Hungarians from all over the world, all 15 million of them.

It was really great to see that ‘Bütyök’ didn’t use you — the crowd supposedly worried about children — for his own political gain. It fills me with joy that at last we could talk about child protection without party politics and lust for power… or did it not actually happen that way?

So I have a question for those of you who think that the leader of Tisza did not use you yesterday for his own political benefit. All of you who marched on the Chain Bridge: why didn’t I hear your concerned voices when the authorities declared that the nationally known stylist, Elle Mark, had abused a minor child? There is documentation of this. They also declared — unfortunately — that the case had become time-barred.

Why didn’t I hear your concerned voices asking how such a horrific crime — the abuse of a minor — could ever be allowed to become time-barred? Why were you silent then?

All of you who take every baseless claim as fact when it comes from DK or Juhi — who themselves are also politically exploiting these issues — whenever they talk about pedophile crimes: why do you dismiss as a conspiracy everything that Róbert Ábrahám says about the leadership of RTL?

Why didn’t any of you go out to protest when an ally of the Momentum party leader — a deputy mayor of Zugló appointed by Momentum’s leader — slapped a child, a student entrusted to him? Why didn’t you protest when this deputy mayor admitted that he slapped a student and then said he had no intention of resigning because the student spoke rudely to him?

This aggressive animal called László Várnai refused to resign from his deputy mayor position because, in his view, the sixteen-year-old student deserved to be slapped for speaking rudely. And he did this as a supervising guardian.

Let me repeat: this was not a delinquent child from a reform school, but a mouthy sixteen-year-old student who, according to this left-wing deputy mayor, deserved to be slapped.

Why didn’t you get outraged over this story? Where were the concerned looks, the teddy bears, the “flooding Tisza over the Danube”?

I’ll tell you: you were nowhere.

You didn’t flood the Danube because you are manipulated and exploited people. Yes — you. People who, lacking independent awareness, are currently being used by a pampered Buda elite boy and his entourage so that they never have to work again for the rest of their lives.

Out of sheer ignorance, you swallow everything they put in front of you, while they carefully make sure you only hear what they say and only believe the lies they feed you.

What a fine country this would be if such a manipulated crowd became the majority — people from whom nearly every form of independent thinking has been eradicated, and who have been trained almost entirely into one-dimensional thinking.

But it’s not too late for you either to learn how to read with comprehension and to inform yourselves objectively. Believe me, it is an uplifting feeling when a person is capable of independent thought.

I challenge you to this — because you don’t deserve to be exploited in such an ugly and disgusting way either.”**

In short, what is actually happening:

  • Diversion: The issue of child protection is being used to discredit a specific political demonstration and its participants.
  • Whataboutism: Instead of addressing the event itself, the speaker brings up other cases — often old, legally closed, or only partially substantiated — to relativize and deflect criticism.
  • Collective stigmatization: Protesters are not treated as individuals but as a “manipulated crowd,” which is a classic propaganda technique.
  • Victim-blaming and condescension: Participants are portrayed as ignorant and easily manipulated, while the speaker adopts a position of moral superiority.
  • Protection of political loyalty: The goal is not child protection, but to assert that only their own side can be legitimate, while all others are framed as acting out of political self-interest.

Plainly put:
👉 What matters is not what happened, but who is saying it.
👉 Child protection here is merely a tool, not the objective.

The government is now scaring pensioners with tax hikes and war even on the Ügyfélkapu platform.

GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY

Dear Pensioner Compatriot,

Brussels and its supporters want to enter the war! They are providing a war loan to Ukraine, which they want to repay from the money of European citizens, through war taxes!

In the name of Hungarian political forces that support Brussels’ war intentions, proposals have emerged that would fundamentally transform the Hungarian pension system.

https://telex.hu/belfold/2025/12/22/ugyfelkapu-fonagy-janos-allamtitkar-propaganda

Dezse-Zelenka Dóra propagandista

**“You know what’s outrageous? Even the Czech European leader and even the NATO Secretary General are unable to snap out of their war psychosis just a few days before Christmas. It was no coincidence that EU leaders tried—literally a week before Christmas—to force member states to take on a joint EU loan in order to support Ukraine. They pushed the plan through, but thanks to Viktor Orbán, Hungary will not have to participate in this loan—and that is a huge achievement.

But then Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, spoke out and said that many European countries have already indicated they would be ready to send troops to the war.

So now I ask all those who, in recent times, accused us of being the only ones talking about war, or questioned why the Hungarian government is putting up war-related billboards across the country, and why Viktor Orbán keeps saying there is a risk of war in Europe. Well—this is exactly why. You see, it’s not only Viktor Orbán who is talking about the danger of war; many others are too. The difference is that we interpret how this danger should be ended or resolved differently.

We believe—together with Viktor Orbán—that the danger of war can only be ended if the parties make peace. Most European Union member states either do not want this at all or do not understand it at all. And now the NATO Secretary General is talking about knowing European countries that would be willing to send troops to the front.

We are not among those countries, and we do not want to be. Hungary will not send troops into a war that has nothing to do with us, that clearly cannot be solved with weapons, and that will have severe and unforeseeable consequences if it continues for much longer. We will not allow Hungarian men to be sent to the Ukrainian front. We will not allow them to fight another country’s war. And we will not allow Hungary to be dragged even deeper—economically as well—into this war just because it brings huge profits for someone.

The NATO Secretary General’s statement is extremely frightening and, frankly, outrageous. It is also terrifying how many countries have been fed the idea that they must take part in this war and defeat Vladimir Putin and Russia militarily. Some EU member states are heading in a very, very wrong direction, and it is deeply alarming to see where this mindset could lead the European Union. We may not like what we end up seeing.

So once again, let us be clear: this is not how wars are ended, and it will not help European people—or Hungarian people—if EU member states become involved in this war both economically and militarily. This is a terrible direction, and it is tragic that just a few days before Christmas, this is what we still have to be talking about.”**