❓️ Who benefits from the shutdown of Russian oil?
If there is no Russian oil and we have to source energy elsewhere, it will not be Hungarian families who benefit, but international energy companies, Shell, and major financial players.
➡️ People linked to multinational corporations do not enter politics because they are concerned about Hungarian families. They are not coming to protect utility price caps — which they call a sham and want to abolish — or family support financed from the bank tax. They are coming to reclaim their money. Including the 15,000 billion forints that the state previously collected from them in the name of burden-sharing. One of the key stakes of the election, therefore, is how much large international companies leave in the common pot and how much they take out of the country.
The “regime change” they speak about actually means dismantling the model that supports families, agriculture, and small and medium-sized enterprises. The real question is whether the money stays in Hungary or flows back to big capital. We want to keep Hungarian families’ money at home.
🟠 That is why in April, Fidesz is the safe choice.
Regarding the recent Ukrainian decision that there will be no Russian oil and we will have to procure it elsewhere — who will be the primary winner? Shell. Shell. We cannot seriously believe that someone sent here from Shell would govern in the interest of Hungarians rather than fulfilling the mandate of their own company and serving their personal interests.
Similarly, no one was sent here from international financial institutions because poor Hungarians lack capable financial experts. That is not the issue. They were sent to remove the bank tax from the country — the very tax from which we support families. They want to reclaim that money: first the 2,000 billion forints from the 2026 budget, then step by step the 15,000 billion previously taken from them.
Let us not be blind. Elections are often about political change and power — and about money. Not personal money, but the money of large international corporations. How much should they contribute to a country’s common good? What level of social responsibility should they assume? In our view, they must contribute — and significantly. They earn well, but a portion must remain here.
Those who come directly from these companies have always considered this contribution excessive. They have always opposed and protested against it. If they come to power, what do you think will happen?
Let us not be blind. What they call “regime change” would dismantle the structure of the Hungarian economy — the Hungarian model we have built — and replace it with a Brussels model, where money flows elsewhere. Not to families, not to agriculture, not to small and medium-sized businesses, but out of the country as dividends to large capital.
That is one of the greatest stakes of this election.
1️⃣ Identifying an External Enemy – “Shell Wins First Place”
📌 Technique: external enemy framing + multinational demonization
👉 The issue is not presented as an energy or geopolitical question, but as a situation where someone is deliberately benefiting at the expense of Hungarians.
👉 Naming a specific company (Shell) personalizes the concept of “big capital.”
🎯 Goal:
– Focus public anger on a clearly identifiable actor
– Turn an economic issue into a moral conflict
💥 Effect:
Voters do not weigh the realities of energy supply.
Instead, they ask:
“Who is trying to profit off us?”
2️⃣ Agent Narrative – “People Sent Here”
📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + questioning loyalty
👉 The opponent is not portrayed as a political competitor, but as a “sent representative.”
👉 Implicit claim: they do not serve Hungarian interests.
🎯 Goal:
– Undermine the opposition’s legitimacy
– Turn the election into a loyalty test
💥 Effect:
The question becomes not “What do they propose?”
But: “Who do they work for?”
3️⃣ Money-Recovery Conspiracy – “15 Trillion”
📌 Technique: large-number activation + dramatization of threat
👉 Repetition of massive figures (2 trillion, 15 trillion).
👉 A step-by-step image of “taking the money back.”
🎯 Goal:
– Maximize the perceived stakes
– Elevate the election to an issue of economic survival
💥 Effect:
Voters do not think in terms of policy programs.
They think:
“They want to take our money.”
4️⃣ False Dilemma – “Keep It Here or Send It to Big Capital?”
📌 Technique: binary framing
👉 Two options only:
– money stays with families
– money goes to big capital
👉 No nuance, no middle ground.
🎯 Goal:
– Create a simple, emotionally charged decision frame
– Occupy the moral high ground
💥 Effect:
The election is no longer an economic policy debate → it becomes a question of loyalty.
5️⃣ “Hungarian Model vs. Brussels Model”
📌 Technique: identity framing + system-preservation narrative
👉 The current system = families, SMEs, agriculture.
👉 Change = capital outflow, dividends, foreign interests.
🎯 Goal:
– Legitimize the existing governing structure
– Make change appear dangerous
💥 Effect:
Change is not presented as an alternative → but as a threat.
📌 Summary
The text is not a technical policy debate about energy strategy.
It follows a classic campaign formula:
- External enemy (multinationals, Shell, Brussels)
- Internal agents
- Threat of enormous financial loss
- Defense of the national model
- A simple moral choice
The core framing:
👉 Politics = a financial struggle between big capital and the nation.
👉 The election = whether the money stays at home.