By Months: Mart Helme
Total Months: 9
Fully Profiled: 9
11.2025
32 Speeches
The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and accusatory, employing strong language such as "shameful," "rottenly corrupt state," "gang," and "robbers." It appeals to moral outrage and utilizes personal attacks (e.g., a reference to a repeat drunk driver in the context of setting the agenda). The speaker stresses the urgent need for action, contrasting themselves with demagoguery and "banana republic" methods.
10.2025
25 Speeches
The style is highly combative, emotional, and accusatory, employing hyperbolic phrases such as "catastrophe," "destroying," and "cynical." A narrative element (the taxi driver's story) and cultural references (Jakob Hurt, profanity as the new culture) are utilized to underscore the immorality of the government’s actions. Logical arguments are interwoven with powerful emotional appeals, labeling the opposition's activities as "populism" and "sheer stupidity."
09.2025
49 Speeches
The rhetoric is extremely combative, aggressive, and accusatory, repeatedly demanding the resignation of ministers and the prime minister. Strong emotional terminology is employed (e.g., "scandalous," "shameless political activism," "childish"), alongside historical comparisons (Goebbels, Mengele, Confucian society). The style is demagogic, focusing on the opponents' personal incompetence and falsehoods, accusing them of feeding the public vague nonsense.
06.2025
33 Speeches
The speaker's style is highly aggressive, emotional, and accusatory, frequently employing strong and derogatory metaphors (banana republic, prostitution, sociopathic narcissist). Emphasis is placed on the government's incompetence and deceit, aiming to paint a picture of a corrupt "regime" and "mafia." The appeals are primarily emotional and value-driven, relying on public dissatisfaction and social media reactions.
05.2025
26 Speeches
The style is extremely combative, sharp, and confrontational, frequently employing direct accusations and derogatory phrases ("you are idiots," "propagandists," "demagogic nonsense"). The speaker utilizes emotional appeals, warning of the collapse of the economy and society, and compares the government to Soviet Estonian propagandists. He demands concrete answers, accusing his opponents of arrogance and evading responses, and uses historical parallels (the 1950s power outages, the Soviet Union's perestroika) to illustrate his points.
04.2025
19 Speeches
The speaker's style is extremely combative, aggressive, and provocative, employing highly emotional language and insulting analogies (e.g., "a draft bill reeking of Stalinism," "a flock of sheep," "genocide of future generations"). To support their arguments, they use historical parallels (the Soviet Union, Stalinism) and personal experiences (Chinese intelligence, being punished in school). The level of formality is low, and the objective is to ridicule and demonize the actions of their opponents.
03.2025
61 Speeches
The speaker's rhetorical style is extremely combative, emotional, and urgent, frequently employing strong accusations and negative labeling ("thief governments," "failed state," "agony"). The appeals are grounded in moral outrage (corruption) and fear (demographic collapse, a surveillance society, ethnic conflicts). The delivery is direct, relatively informal, and features repeated attacks on the personal and political credibility of opponents.
02.2025
43 Speeches
The speaker’s style is extremely combative, accusatory, and emotional, frequently employing insults and strong epithets (e.g., "corrupt," "helpless," "thief parties"). He appeals both to public outrage (lies, obfuscation) and to security fears (the danger of losing Ida-Virumaa, the Russian fifth column). The speech also includes references to historical knowledge and personal experience (ambassador in Moscow, farmer), and demands that opponents apologize.
01.2025
15 Speeches
The speaker employs a highly combative, critical, and urgent style, frequently utilizing emotional and colorful language (e.g., "secrecy mania," "rubber stamp," "potential state thieves"). They draw upon both personal anecdotes (such as the expense claims scandal) and broad ideological and historical comparisons (communism, the post-democratic era). The tone is accusatory, charging opponents with incompetence, double standards, and the imposition of ideological censorship.