🤢 Hadházy has done it again — once again revealing the tasteless, lowbrow side of himself that gets irritated whenever others have standards. What really bothers Hadházy is when someone else chooses to spend their own money the way they want — say, on a nice watch or a beautiful bag. But someone really should explain to Hadházy that, first of all, good taste is not a matter of money, and second, he himself could also buy nice things from the tens of millions of forints he has earned over just the past four years as a so-called “member of parliament.”
Péter Hajdu responded to Ákos Hadházy, who recently posted about a TV host starting a Bohár Dániel interview while wearing a Rolex worth several million forints. You know how much I dislike it when someone rummages through another person’s wallet. I find it extremely tasteless to run a campaign based on who owns what kind of bag or what clothes they wear. This is nothing more than crude rabble-rousing, and Ákos Hadházy is particularly good at it.
But the problem is that this is not what Ákos Hadházy’s job should be. Ákos Hadházy is a member of parliament who recently announced that he is running again and once more asking for the support of the people of Zugló — and now also Erzsébetváros — to represent them in parliament. Except that even now, he is not representing those he is supposed to represent.
Péter Hajdu also pointed out in his video that in 2025, Ákos Hadházy has not spoken once in parliament — despite the fact that this is literally his job, the one for which he receives a very substantial salary. His parliamentary remuneration is easy to calculate, since the data is public, and it clearly shows that over these four years, he earned close to 100 million forints from this very job — a job he did not do, given that he spoke in parliament only twice during those four years. And that doesn’t even include the profits from his highly successful veterinary clinic in Szekszárd.
So Ákos Hadházy has money — plenty of it — yet he chooses to campaign by criticizing how others spend their money: on watches, bags, coats, and clothes. He does all this while receiving a salary for work he does not perform. There is a serious problem with the mindset of those who believe that a member of parliament’s only job is to post on Facebook and stir up resentment against others, rather than actually achieving something for the people they represent.
For example, working to make life better in Zugló, or now in Erzsébetváros; improving the living environment; or at the very least assessing what the people who live there actually need. But no — Ákos Hadházy has repeatedly proven himself completely incapable of this. And now he is asking his followers to transfer money to him because he is running in the election and therefore “needs funds.”
Well, no — that’s a bit disgusting.
So it’s not my job to defend Péter Hajdu, but in this case, I think he is largely right. Péter Hajdu should host shows, and Ákos Hadházy should become a private investigator or look for some other job — because he is completely unfit for the role of a member of parliament.
1️⃣ “I don’t like looking into other people’s wallets” – False moral high ground
“I really don’t like it when someone looks into another person’s wallet…”
🔹 Technique: performative neutrality
🔹 Function:
The speaker claims moral distance from wealth-shaming, then immediately builds the entire argument on it.
👉 Contradiction:
While condemning “judging luxury items,” the text spends the rest of the speech listing incomes, salaries, businesses, and profits.
2️⃣ “Proli-hergelés” – Class contempt framing
“This is simple rabble-rousing, and Hadházy is very good at it.”
🔹 Technique:
- elitist language
- delegitimizing public criticism as “low-class agitation”
👉 Effect:
Public concern about corruption or conflicts of interest is reframed as vulgar jealousy, not civic oversight.
3️⃣ “That’s not his job” – Role policing
🔹 Claim:
An MP’s job is not to expose corruption, but to behave “properly.”
🔹 Technique:
Redefining political responsibility to exclude:
- investigations
- whistleblowing
- public accountability
👉 Reality:
In democratic systems, oversight and exposure are core parliamentary functions, not deviations.
4️⃣ “He didn’t speak in Parliament” – Selective performance metrics
“In 2025 he didn’t speak once in Parliament…”
🔹 Technique:
Cherry-picked indicators of “work”
🔹 What’s omitted:
- committee work
- investigations
- parliamentary questions
- reports, complaints, legal actions
👉 Manipulation:
Political activity is reduced to microphone time, because that is the easiest metric to weaponize.
5️⃣ Salary arithmetic – Resentment engineering
“Nearly 100 million forints in four years…”
🔹 Technique:
- raw numbers without context
- moral shock framing
👉 Goal:
To turn voters against an opposition MP by provoking financial resentment, not policy disagreement.
6️⃣ Private business attack – Double standard
“…and we haven’t even talked about his profitable veterinary clinic.”
🔹 Technique:
Weaponizing private income only when it belongs to an opponent
👉 Contrast:
Pro-government figures’ wealth is framed as:
- success
- merit
- private matter
Opposition wealth = hypocrisy.
7️⃣ “He begs for donations” – Delegitimizing grassroots funding
🔹 Technique:
Reframing voluntary political donations as:
- begging
- immorality
- personal enrichment
👉 Irony:
Grassroots funding is attacked precisely because it bypasses state-aligned financial structures.
8️⃣ Final insult – Occupational humiliation
“He should become a private detective or find another job.”
🔹 Technique:
- ridicule
- deprofessionalization
- symbolic expulsion from politics
👉 Purpose:
To signal that certain types of opposition behavior should not exist in politics at all.
🧠 Overall pattern – what is this really about?
This text is not a defense of ethics or parliamentary standards. It is about:
- shifting attention away from corruption questions (Rolex, interviews, power proximity),
- reframing oversight as harassment,
- redefining “real political work” to exclude accountability,
- and portraying opposition figures as lazy, greedy, and socially illegitimate.
👉 Classic propaganda move:
When you can’t refute the question, destroy the questioner.