What are we reading?
Well, it turns out that an internal poll from the Tisza party has been leaked, specifically from a constituency in Somogy County, and the situation is that we are leading by a lot. Attila Gevencsér, the Fidesz candidate, stands at 44.7%, while the Tisza candidate is at 29.2%.

This proves that the Tisza politicians themselves know perfectly well that the opinion polls they produce—claiming that they are way ahead—are absolutely not real. They themselves know that they are distorting reality.

It’s also worth taking a look at the latest figures from the Hungarian Society Research Institute, which was the most accurate in predicting the final result of the 2022 elections as well. According to them, Fidesz is also clearly in the lead. So I think we should base our conclusions on this, and not on the opinion polls paid for by the Tisza party.

This is a real exposure. The internal constituency poll of Tisza in Kaposvár has been leaked, and it turns out that Fidesz could reproduce its 2022 result locally and is leading the Tisza candidate by more than 15 percentage points.

This is in line with the latest survey by Magyar Társadalomkutató, the company that most accurately predicted the 2022 election, according to which Fidesz is leading nationwide 51–41.

Therefore, Péter Magyar and his team, hand in hand with left-wing polling firms, are lying straight to the faces of the Hungarian people without batting an eye.

That’s why: Fidesz is the safe choice!

🎭 What is actually happening in this text?

This is not information—it’s trust manipulation combined with a pre-manufactured sense of victory.

---

1️⃣ “Leaked internal poll” – an unverifiable claim

“the Tisza party’s internal poll has leaked”

🔴 Problem:

• no document
• no methodology
• no data source
• no independent confirmation

👉 Function:

• illusion of secret knowledge
• “we know more than you do”
• instant appearance of credibility

This is a classic propaganda device: inside information that cannot be verified, yet is emotionally powerful.

---

2️⃣ One constituency → nationwide “exposure”

Kaposvár / Somogy / a single electoral district

👉 Trick:

• local data → national conclusion
• statistical nonsense

It’s like saying:

“It’s raining in Kaposvár, therefore there’s a storm across the entire country.”

This is deliberate distortion, not a professional mistake.

---

3️⃣ “They know they are lying” – attribution of intent without evidence

“they themselves know they are distorting reality”

🔴 What’s missing:

• internal emails
• statements
• proof

👉 What’s present:

• projecting intent onto the opponent
• constructing moral superiority
• delegitimizing the opponent’s character

This is not a rebuttal—it’s character assassination.

---

4️⃣ “Magyar Társadalomkutató = truth”

“they were the most accurate in 2022”

⚠️ Manipulative move:

• one past hit → absolute credibility

No mention of:

• margins of error
• methodological changes
• who commissioned the research
• current uncertainty

👉 This is an authoritarian argument:

“Believe us because we say so—and once we were right.”

---

5️⃣ “51–41” as an emotional sedative

“nationwide 51–41”

This is not information, but:

• reassurance
• elimination of doubt
• the feeling that “it’s already decided”

🎯 Goal:

• don’t ask
• don’t doubt
• don’t think further

---

6️⃣ Conscious deception, not a mistake

And this is where what you said comes in—and it’s crucial:

Alexandra cannot tell the truth about the polls,
and this has been confirmed by her superiors.

👉 Conclusion:

This is not analysis.
Not “bad interpretation.”
Not “exaggeration.”

🔴 This is a narrative executed on instruction.

She does not measure.
She does not analyze.
She transmits a message.

---

7️⃣ Closing line = political advertisement

“That’s why: Fidesz is the safe choice!”

This exposes everything.

The entire text is nothing more than:

• a pre-fabricated justification
• a lead-in to a campaign slogan
• “if you’re not with us, you’re believing lies”

---

🧠 Short summary

This text is:

❌ not data-driven
❌ not verifiable
❌ not methodological
❌ not professional

✅ But it is perfect propaganda:

• illusion of secret knowledge
• false certainty
• demonization of the opponent
• shutdown of thinking

❗ The statement made by the Tisza-affiliated host “it’s-fine-like-this” Ádám is unacceptable and disgusting.
But what do we expect from a political group whose leader wiretapped, blackmailed, and abused his own wife?

❌ You cannot talk about women like this.
According to them, a woman can’t be successful on her own, can’t run in an election, and can’t work for the Hungarian people?

👉 Because of people like Tóta W., Péter Magyar, and Ádám Nagy, women are afraid to step into politics.
And it’s exactly because of statements like these that we will defeat them again and again and show that we women are not intimidated by them.

Now, if last time anyone felt uneasy hearing the statements of the Tisza activist “it’s fine like this” Ádám, I think now everyone will be even more shocked. Especially girls, especially those who might have public ambitions. Because “it’s fine like this” Ádám explained, in the beloved language of the Tisza camp, that in order for someone to achieve anything in politics, well… how should this be phrased delicately… you need certain “skills” that are not exactly related to the job itself.

Just listen to what he said:
“You put in all this time and energy — how many asses you licked, how many dicks you sucked.”
“I don’t think I should apologize just because someone might feel offended by something.”

Well, it’s precisely because of statements like these that the women — or rural people, or the elderly — whom Ádám may have called stupid in that earlier video you mentioned, will not find their place with Tisza. Because where people think about them like this, where a political community’s leader or main influencer thinks about them this way, you have no place there.

🎯 The communication pattern of the “Alexandra-style” statement

This style is not an opinion — it is a recognizable political method.

---

1️⃣ Moral shock → immediate political translation

Starting point:
an unacceptable, vulgar statement.

Up to this point, it could simply be a clear condemnation.

BUT here comes the leap:

specific remark → characterization of an entire political side

This is the first trick:
turning an individual case into a systemic judgment.

---

2️⃣ Building an emotional shield (defense of women)

It introduces an undeniably strong moral theme:

👩 “You cannot speak about women like this”
👩 “This is why women are afraid to enter politics”

This does two things at once:

• elevates the speaker to moral high ground
• builds a protective shield around them

From this point on, anyone who questions the logical leap can be made to look as if they are minimizing misogyny.

This is a debate-closing technique, not a debate-opening one.

---

3️⃣ Guilt by association

The pattern:

one influencer’s statement
→ the party leader’s past
→ “these people are like this”
→ “you don’t belong there”

This is classic guilt by association.

It does not prove:

• organizational culture
• official positions
• systemic patterns

It relies only on emotional logic:
👉 “if a person like this is there → the whole environment is corrupt”

---

4️⃣ Fear directed at a target group

Primary audience: women, young girls.

The deep structure of the message:

“That is a dangerous environment for you.”

This appeals to protective instincts, not rational evaluation.

This is identity-based mobilization:
the question becomes not what they do politically,
but where you belong morally.

---

5️⃣ Moral delegitimization of the political opponent

The final claim is not:

“This statement is unacceptable.”

It becomes:

“This political community is morally unacceptable.”

That’s a crucial difference.

This is no longer criticism — it is an exclusionary moral judgment.

---

🧠 Why is this so powerful?

Because it activates three levels at once:

Level	Effect
Emotional	outrage
Moral	good vs. bad
Identity	“which side are you on?”

In this state, the brain does not analyze facts — it chooses sides.

---

⚠️ What’s the trap?

If someone responds by:

• getting personal
• relativizing
• attacking harshly

then the speaker’s narrative gets confirmed:
👉 “See? This is what they’re like.”

---

💡 In one sentence

This statement is not about the issue itself —
it’s about turning a moral topic into a political tribal boundary line.

I see that the left-wing press is now spinning on the claim that the government is still “searching for a solution” regarding the January utility price cap. This is the usual attempt to create uncertainty.

Let’s be clear: the government is not searching — it has already decided. The principled decision has been made, and the support will be provided to every Hungarian family. The cost of the extraordinary cold will not be paid by the people.

Experts are currently working on the technical details to ensure that the assistance reaches everywhere, from Budapest’s panel apartment blocks to detached houses. This is responsible, meticulous work.

While the left looks for faults even where there are none, the national government is delivering real solutions — including to homes in Budapest.

That is the difference between work and empty talk. Our job is action, not argument. We will protect Budapest’s families.

🎯 The real impact of this statement

This text does not present a solution — it performs psychological damage control.

---

🧠 1️⃣ Reassurance in uncertainty

When they say “we’ve already decided,” that is not information, but a calming phrase.
The goal is not for you to know what will happen, but to make sure you stop asking questions.

Effect:

• anger decreases,
• accountability fades,
• the feeling remains that “they’ll handle it anyway.”

---

🧓 2️⃣ Retroactive reframing of the pensioners’ bonus

Earlier, the message was:

• they received extra money,
• they are “protected,”
• they should be grateful.

Now it turns out:

• the bonus does not cover utility costs,
• it doesn’t even cover one week of extreme cold.

👉 The effect is not admitting a mistake, but rewriting its meaning:

it’s not that the system is insufficient,
it’s that “the weather was extraordinary.”

This is cognitive displacement:
the promise wasn’t false — reality simply became “unusual.”

---

❄️ 3️⃣ Shifting blame to an external cause: “the cost of the cold”

Cold weather is framed as a natural disaster, not a foreseeable, manageable risk.

Effect:

• responsibility disappears,
• decision-makers become “protectors,”
• citizens are reduced to passive sufferers.

---

🧩 4️⃣ “Experts are working on it” = buying time

This phrase does not signal a solution, but implies:

• don’t calculate yet,
• don’t ask questions,
• don’t compare.

Effect:

• the current shortfall becomes normalized,
• people burn through their own reserves in the meantime.

---

🔒 5️⃣ Closing the debate on moral grounds

“We act, others argue.”

This shuts down thinking.

Effect:

• those who ask questions are labeled “nitpicky,”
• those who complain are “ungrateful,”
• the real problem becomes unspeakable.

---

🧠 Overall effect

This statement is not about utility costs. It is about making people:

• accept that the extra money is not enough,
• stop treating that as a problem,
• and be grateful that “at least they got something.”

👉 This is not solution-focused communication.
It is the deliberate lowering of expectations.

Brussels, Péter Magyar, and every politician of the Tisza party want to phase out—and even ban—Russian energy resources.
Yet Europe’s lowest utility costs for Hungarians can only be guaranteed if we do not do this.

That is why we will take Brussels’ latest illegal decision to court, which would ban the import of Russian gas and oil starting next year.
When it comes to protecting utility prices, Hungarians can rely only on us. The Tisza party and their Western oil-multinational politicians would simply obey Brussels and dump triple utility bills onto Hungarian families.

Only Fidesz is the safe choice!

If it were up to Brussels and the Tisza party, next year people would be turning down their radiators, because today they adopted—by an absolutely illegal procedure, which is why we will sue them at the European Court—a decision stating that from 2027 it would no longer be allowed to import Russian gas into the European Union.

This would mean that Hungarian families would no longer be entitled to the extremely low heating utility costs that every Hungarian family currently enjoys.
Tisza and Brussels are on the same side, while we are on the side of the Hungarian people—now, as always. That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

1️⃣ False merging (Brussels = Tisza = Péter Magyar)

“Brussels, Péter Magyar and every politician of the Tisza…”

👉 In a single sentence, three different things are fused together — without any evidence.

• The European Union ≠ a Hungarian opposition party
• The Tisza Party ≠ concrete EU decision-making
• Fidesz deliberately sets itself up in opposition to all of them

🎯 Goal:
Don’t think about them separately — see only one single “enemy package”.

---

2️⃣ Fear-mongering without numbers

“They would slap triple utility prices on Hungarian families”

👉 No source. No calculation. No model.

It is never clarified:

• triple compared to what,
• from when,
• relative to which price level,
• with what compensations.

🧠 This is not an economic claim, but emotional shock tactics.

---

3️⃣ “Illegal decision” – legal fog

“in an absolutely illegal way… we will sue at the European Court”

👉 A classic trick:

• it never says
  • which law is being violated,
  • which competence is missing,
  • which procedure was breached.

🎭 The word “we will sue” reassures — it does not inform.

---

4️⃣ Temporal distortion (2027 → tomorrow)

“If it were up to them, next year they could turn down the radiators…”

👉 While the speaker themselves says the change would be from 2027.

📌 This is deliberate:

• a distant decision is presented as an immediate threat,
• leaving no time for rational thinking.

---

5️⃣ False exclusivity: “only us”

“When it comes to protecting utility costs, Hungarians can only rely on us”

👉 This is not an argument, but a loyalty test.

• It doesn’t say what exactly we will do
• It says: if you don’t choose us, there will be trouble

This is emotional blackmail, not public policy.

---

6️⃣ The final frame: “them vs. us”

“Tisza and Brussels on one side, we are on the side of the Hungarian people”

🎯 This is the endpoint of propaganda:

• them = foreign, dangerous, obedient
• us = protection, security, nation

At this point, truth no longer matters —
only which side you belong to.

---

🧠 In short

This text is not about energy policy, but about:

• maintaining fear,
• demonizing the opponent,
• triggering reflexes instead of thinking.

👉 If you’re afraid, you don’t ask questions.
If you don’t ask questions, you are controllable.

🧠 How do they try to influence people in this text?

🎯 1️⃣ Fear-based pressure to decide

Throughout the text, the message is:

“If it’s not us, there will be trouble.”

It will be cold,
it will be expensive,
your family will be in danger.

👉 This is not information, but the creation of a stress situation.
Under fear, people do not weigh options — they look for something to cling to.

🧠 2️⃣ Triggering thinking through emotional reflexes

They do not provide data, but emotional anchors:

“triple utility bills”
“they’ll turn down the radiators”
“illegal decision”
“orders from Brussels”

👉 These are keywords, not claims.
The brain does not calculate — it detects threat.

🧩 3️⃣ Simplifying the enemy image

Multiple actors are merged into a single threat:

Brussels
Tisza
Péter Magyar

👉 This way, you don’t have to think about them separately.
It’s enough to know: “they are bad.”

This reduces mental load — and with it, critical thinking.

⏳ 4️⃣ Creating time pressure

Although they talk about 2027, the effect is:

“This could happen tomorrow.”

👉 Urgency blocks questioning.
If danger feels immediate, there is no time to “look it up later.”

🧠 5️⃣ Offering false security

After frightening the audience, they also provide the solution:

“You can rely only on us.”

👉 Psychologically, this is powerful:

first they take away your sense of security,
then they give it back — conditionally.

This is classic emotional dependency building.

🧪 6️⃣ Closing the us–them frame

By the end, the question is no longer whether it’s true, but:

“Which side are you on?”

If you’re with us: a good Hungarian
If not: dangerous, foreign, obedient

👉 At this point, debate ends.
This is identity-based manipulation.

🧠 In summary

This statement does not inform — it:

generates fear,
oversimplifies,
creates urgency,
and then demands loyalty.

👉 If you are afraid, you don’t ask questions.
If you don’t ask questions, you are easy to control.