While we are giving a 30% discount on heating bills due to the extreme cold in January — on top of having the lowest energy prices in Europe — the Tisza Party’s in-house media is once again talking about abolishing utility price reductions.
We can send a message about this in the national petition too!
We will not allow Hungarians’ money to be spent on Ukraine and the war, and we will not allow energy prices to skyrocket because of it.
We can say it in any language we like — in Brussels and for Péter Magyar and his allies, only the clear will of the Hungarian people counts. 😉
Let’s all fill out the petition!
How many more ways do I have to say it?
Hungarians do not want to send money to Ukraine,
they do not want to send money to the war,
and they do not want their utility costs to increase because of the war.
Maybe this way they’ll finally understand it in Brussels too.
🔴 1️⃣ “We provide cheap energy” vs. “They would abolish it” — fear framing
The opening structure:
“We give discounts”
↔
“They would scrap the utility price cap”
This is classic loss-focused communication:
People fear losing something more than they value gaining something.
What’s not explained:
- who exactly would abolish it,
- when,
- in what official program,
- based on what numbers,
- with what alternative.
Instead, the emotional formula is:
opponent comes to power → your bills go up
That’s one of the strongest voter triggers.
🧠 2️⃣ “Tisza’s in-house media” — delegitimization instead of evidence
Instead of quoting a concrete statement from the Tisza Párt or Magyar Péter, the message does this:
➡️ It sticks on a label: “in-house media”
This suggests:
- not independent journalism
- not opinion
- but a propaganda machine
This is source poisoning:
before you even hear anything, you’re told it’s not credible.
⚔️ 3️⃣ Energy prices → Ukraine → war — emotional chain-building
Watch the subconscious chain:
end of price caps
⬇
energy prices rise
⬇
because money goes to Ukraine
⬇
you are paying for the war
This is not a proven cause-and-effect sequence, but an emotional narrative.
The goal is not economic debate, but this feeling:
“My money would be taken and given to others, while I’m worse off.”
Identity + loss + injustice = a very powerful mix.
🎭 4️⃣ “We can say it in any language” — Brussels as an external power
Here, “Brussels” is not a place, but a symbol:
European Union
→ a foreign center
→ not on the side of “the Hungarian people”
→ something that must be forced to accept Hungarian will
This is sovereignty framing:
We (the people) vs They (external elites)
At this point, it’s no longer policy debate — it’s an identity struggle.
🗳 5️⃣ “Let’s fill out the petition” — participation as loyalty
The petition here isn’t about gathering information, but:
✔️ reinforcing the camp
✔️ political mobilization
✔️ psychological commitment
Whoever fills it out has already chosen a side.
🔎 So what is this really?
This message isn’t trying to prove which energy policy is better.
It implants this formula:
We protect → they would take away → you would pay → foreigners benefit
It works because it:
- builds on fear
- uses loss aversion
- defines an external enemy
- creates a moral frame (we are protectors, they are the threat)
That’s why it works emotionally even without detailed policy substance.