Brussels’ two candidates didn’t show up to collect their nomination sheets! Neither Balázs Barkóczi from DK nor the Tisza Party’s candidate came — even though I brought them a gift.
We have received the nomination sheets. We picked them up at the District 15 municipal office, and my gift remained unused. I brought it for the DK candidate — Brussels’ number one candidate — and for the Tisza candidate as well, since both of them are pro-Brussels. But they didn’t come. They didn’t dare to show up — or maybe they’re still asleep, or I don’t know what the issue is.
I would have confronted them with the fact that they are Brussels’ candidates, pro-war politicians who want to send Hungarians’ money to Ukraine and, in cooperation with Brussels and Kyiv, drive utility prices through the roof. We, on the other hand, are fighting against this.
1️⃣ “Brussels’ two candidates” – External control framing
📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + agent labeling
👉 The opponents are portrayed not as independent political actors, but as “Brussels’ people.”
👉 The local election becomes a question of geopolitical loyalty.
🎯 Goal:
– Undermine the opponent’s legitimacy
– Frame the election as an act of “national self-defense”
💥 Effect:
The voter no longer asks:
“What do they represent?”
but instead:
“Whose people are they?”
2️⃣ “They didn’t dare to show up” – Cowardice narrative
📌 Technique: character attack + presenting assumption as fact
👉 Without evidence, the opponent is framed as cowardly.
👉 Their absence is transformed into a moral failing.
🎯 Goal:
– Demonstrate dominance
– Emphasize one’s own courage
💥 Effect:
Instead of political debate, a character image is formed:
“We are willing to face confrontation – they are hiding.”
3️⃣ “I brought them a gift” – Symbolic provocation
📌 Technique: performative gesture + media-friendly action
👉 The “gift” is not a genuine diplomatic gesture, but a visual conflict tool.
👉 The real aim is a camera-ready moment.
🎯 Goal:
– Manufacture a narrative even without the opponent’s presence
– Mobilize one’s own base
💥 Effect:
The absence of the event becomes presented as evidence in itself.
4️⃣ “Pro-war politicians” – Moral labeling
📌 Technique: binary framing (peace vs. war)
👉 The message avoids programmatic debate and instead creates a moral category.
👉 If you are not with us → you want war.
🎯 Goal:
– Create a simple emotional decision framework
– Simplify complex geopolitical issues
💥 Effect:
The voter does not weigh policy questions, but chooses a moral side.
5️⃣ “They’ll send money to Ukraine / utilities will skyrocket” – Existential fear
📌 Technique: fear stacking (combining economic and war-related fears)
👉 Links livelihood security with foreign policy decisions.
👉 Brussels + Kyiv + utility prices → unified threat package.
🎯 Goal:
– Activate economic anxiety
– Frame the opposition as a financial danger
💥 Effect:
The audience does not hear geopolitics — they worry about their own wallet.
🔎 Overall Picture
This communication operates on multiple layers:
- Identification of an external enemy (Brussels, Kyiv)
- Internal agent narrative
- Moral labeling (“pro-war”)
- Character weakening (“they didn’t dare show up”)
- Activation of economic fear
The debate is not about what the program is,
but about who stands for the nation and who serves external forces.