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.