Brussels, Kyiv and Tisza would drag Hungary into the war. In their view, that is the right course of action. Népszava even wrote this today. We will not allow it!
According to Népszava, you are a warmonger. I read it — they are attacking you quite harshly. According to Népszava, there is nothing wrong with Manfred Weber sending soldiers to Ukraine. They also see no problem with Hungarian soldiers going as well.
Népszava argues that Hungary should contribute to the 90-billion war loan, so that the country could finally stand on the “right side of history.” They also write that Hungary should immediately break away from cheap Russian energy, because otherwise we are financing Putin’s war.
They further claim that forced conscription in Transcarpathia is not a problem — even if it affects ethnic Hungarians — since Ukraine is at war and Ukrainian citizens must go and fight.
So that is Népszava’s position. That is the opinion of the author — and, according to this narrative, the opinion of Brussels, Kyiv and the Tisza Party as well.
Our position, however, is that Hungary must be kept out of the war.
👉 The stake of the election is whether Hungary will continue to be led by a government that stands up for Hungarian interests.
With a single wrong decision, we could jeopardize the future of generations. If we choose the Brussels path, we would immediately have to say goodbye to low utility prices, family support programs, and personal income tax exemptions. The left has already made its decision: if they come to power, they would rather send people’s money to Ukraine, to multinational corporations, and to banks — even if that harms the country. They do this because they have a leader who would not be able to say no to external commands, who would not be capable of standing firm for even a moment when the fate of our homeland is at stake.
🟠 That is why in April we must choose a responsible leader who is capable of resisting even the strongest pressure from Brussels and Kyiv — therefore only Viktor Orbán and Fidesz represent a secure choice.
Ultimately, this election is about whether the country will be led by a government that puts the interests of the Hungarian people first, or by one that is unable to say no to Brussels and unable to stand up for Hungarian sovereignty and national interests. Everything else follows from this.
This difference is already visible in how the two political sides behave. When Hungary’s energy sovereignty was attacked — when Ukraine tried to blackmail us by halting oil deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline — it became clear what is at stake. They are doing this because they know that as long as we remain in government, we will not support policies that would allow war-related risks and economic hardships to be imported into the European Union.
They are doing everything they can to bring us down. And when such an attack affects Hungarian households, Hungarian utility prices, and Hungary’s energy security, how does the Tisza Party respond? It remains silent — and through that silence, effectively aligns itself with the Ukrainian and Brussels side.
This, in the broader sense, will be the real question of the election on April 12.
🧠 Alexa – Propaganda and Rhetorical Analysis
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ Maximizing the Existential Stakes
📌 Technique: “We could lose the future of generations.” “Everything follows from this.”
🎯 Goal: To frame the election as a historic turning point.
💥 Effect: Rational evaluation is replaced by fear and risk aversion. “This is not the time to make mistakes.”
2️⃣ Black-and-White Electoral Framing
📌 Technique: “Hungarian interests vs. Brussels” “Sovereignty vs. obedience”
🎯 Goal: To reduce political competition to a moral dichotomy.
💥 Effect: Nuance and intermediate positions disappear. Voters decide based on identity rather than policy.
3️⃣ Personalizing Economic Fear
📌 Technique: “We would have to say goodbye to cheap utilities.” “They would take away family benefits and income tax exemptions.”
🎯 Goal: To turn an EU-related debate into a direct household financial issue.
📌 Technique: Ukraine “blackmails,” Brussels “exerts pressure,” the opposition “remains silent.”
🎯 Goal: To construct a three-actor conflict model:
External attacker
Internal collaborator
National defender
💥 Effect: Political debate shifts from programs to loyalty.
🛢️ Dramatizing the “Druzhba” Pipeline
📌 Technique: The shutdown of the Barátság kőolajvezeték (Druzhba oil pipeline) is framed as “an attack against Hungarian energy sovereignty.”
🎯 Goal: To elevate a technical supply issue into a national security conflict.
💥 Effect: The audience no longer asks: – What are the alternative supply routes? – What is the available capacity? – What are the refinery adaptation costs?
Instead, they ask: “Who is attacking us?”
5️⃣ Suggesting Intent Without Evidence
📌 Technique: “They are doing this to bring us down.”
🎯 Goal: To simplify a complex geopolitical situation into a deliberate political conspiracy.
💥 Effect: Uncertainty becomes moral certainty. Emotional logic overrides demands for proof.
6️⃣ Silence = Complicity
📌 Technique: “The Tisza Party remains silent, thereby siding with the other camp.”
🎯 Goal: To frame political nuance or tactical silence as betrayal.
💥 Effect: The audience is pushed to automatically choose sides, as neutrality becomes morally unacceptable.
7️⃣ The Strong Leader Archetype
📌 Technique: “Only Orbán Viktor can resist the pressure.”
🎯 Goal: To transform the political choice into a question of leadership character.
💥 Effect: Systemic or policy criticism becomes a personal loyalty test.
📊 Summary – Structure of the Narrative
This follows a classic mobilization scheme:
Maximizing danger
Identifying an external enemy
Naming an internal collaborator
Personalizing economic fear
Presenting a strong leader as the solution
The essence of the structure: 👉 Not a policy debate. 👉 Not a technocratic discussion. 👉 But identity + security + loyalty.
Left-wing polling companies are not conducting genuine measurements; instead, they are trying to influence voters. However, if we step outside their bubble, reality immediately becomes clear.
Hungarians have both common sense and heart, and in April we will choose a responsible leader who stands up for Hungarian interests even in times of war.
Fidesz is the safe choice.
Median, for example, fundamentally prepares its surveys on political commission, aiming to influence the elections. Their message is that it is worth lining up behind Péter Magyar because he supposedly not only has a chance, but that the race is already decided and he will defeat Fidesz. None of this is true. Anyone who reads other polls can see a 20% difference being claimed — which is completely ridiculous. Deák Dániel has also exposed that this supposed gap is not real at all, and that the two largest parties are actually neck and neck.
It is my firm conviction, and also my personal experience, that our results are in fact much better than what Median has reported. Our individual constituency results and expectations are also significantly stronger.
That is why I say: everyone should reject Median’s attempt at manipulation and instead trust what they see around them. Look at the world. I believe everyone feels that this election carries enormous stakes.
Viktor Orbán is the only leader willing to stand up for Hungarian interests, even when he is attacked for doing so. Péter Magyar, in the current situation, does not stand up for Hungarians — not even when the Ukrainians deliberately shut down the oil pipeline supplying Hungary. What can we expect from such a person?
I believe Hungarians sense this as well, and on April 12 they will make their decision accordingly.
1️⃣ Delegitimizing Pollsters
Technique:
“left-wing pollsters”
“political commission”
“attempt to influence voters”
“bubble”
Goal:
Preemptive discrediting.
If the numbers are unfavorable, the strategy is not to debate the data professionally, but to label the pollster as a political actor.
Effect:
The follower does not ask:
“What is the methodology?”
but instead asks:
“Who is behind it?”
This is a classic source attack.
2️⃣ Offering an Alternative Reality (“20% is ridiculous”)
Here, the counter-narrative appears:
“neck and neck”
“our results are much better”
“in my personal experience”
Technique:
Positioning subjective impressions against statistical data.
Goal:
Emotional certainty > statistical uncertainty.
Effect:
The audience reinforces its belief by referring to its own environment:
“My acquaintances are saying the same thing.”
This is a typical anecdotal override.
3️⃣ External Threat + Betrayal Frame
The Ukrainian oil pipeline issue appears alongside the motif of “not standing up for Hungarians.”
Key elements:
“the Ukrainians are deliberately shutting it off”
“does not stand up”
“only Orbán”
Technique:
Turning a complex energy dispute into a question of moral loyalty.
Goal:
Transforming the election from a policy debate into a loyalty test.
Effect:
Whoever is not with Orbán → remains silent → therefore complicit.
4️⃣ The “Only Responsible Leader” Construction
Orbán Viktor = the only one who stands up for the country.
This is the classic monopolized competence narrative.
As a political parallel, this framing is often used for other leaders as well, such as:
Donald Trump
Volodimir Zelenszkij
In both cases, we can observe the personalized legitimacy pattern:
“Only he is capable of protecting the country.”
🧠 The “Retreat and Attack” Pattern
The mechanism works as follows:
An unfavorable piece of data appears.
The source is reclassified as a political actor.
Subjective personal experience is elevated above numbers.
The discussion is redirected toward existential threat.
The speaker presents their own leader as the only solution.
This is not a policy debate, but psychological stabilization communication aimed at the speaker’s own camp.
🎯 The Bottom Line
The text is not about:
actual levels of support,
or methodological questions.
It is about this message:
“Don’t believe the polls. Believe us. And be afraid if we don’t win.”
This is classic mobilization rhetoric.
One of the pro-war authors of Népszava has taken aim at me 😳
❗️They are upset that in my Facebook videos I draw the attention of Hungarian voters — including those in North Pest — to the European war threat and Brussels’ war hysteria.
Let’s see the arguments they use to attack me 😅
📍 According to Népszava, Manfred Weber (editor’s note: Péter Magyar’s superior in the European People’s Party) does not want to send civilians to Ukraine, only soldiers.
📍 According to Népszava, that is perfectly fine — and it would also be fine if Hungarian soldiers were part of an EU army.
📍 According to Népszava, there is no point in “fearmongering” at home, because no country can be dragged into a war against its will — meaning Hungary is not in danger either.
This is nonsense to begin with! Moreover, Brussels is not drifting unwillingly into a major war against Russia — it is going into it deliberately, and would take all member states along.
(Hungary would only be taken along for now. And that will remain the case only as long as there is a national government in Budapest!)
📍 According to Népszava, there is nothing wrong with hundreds of billions of forints of Hungarian taxpayers’ money going to Ukraine, because at least we would finally be “on the right side.”
📍 According to Népszava, we must naturally give up cheap Russian energy — otherwise we would continue financing Putin’s war machine.
📍 And according to Népszava, those ethnic Hungarians (and others) in Transcarpathia who try to avoid forced conscription are breaking the law — meaning it is right that Ukrainian authorities take them to the front.
☝️ This is Népszava — the voice of Brussels leaders, the Tisza Párt, liberal-left portals, and the hard core of Tisza supporters!
— They would drag Hungary into war; — They would send Hungarians’ money to Ukraine; — They would admit Ukraine into the EU; — They would nod along to 1,000-forint fuel prices and the abolition of utility price caps; — They would send weapons and people into a major war against Russia.
❗️I warn every peace-supporting Hungarian against them❗️
❗ In times of danger, it is especially important that we grant a mandate to a strong leader in April. Viktor Orbán speaks the same language as heavyweight presidents who lead the world’s most powerful nations.
However, this is not self-evident.
With a single bad decision, we could wipe everything away. What can we expect from Péter Magyar, who cannot even keep his own private life under control? Such a reckless person would quietly fall into the pro-Brussels, pro-Ukraine mainstream, where he would be incapable of saying no. He would casually give up our veto right — and once that is gone, we would never be able to regain it, even if the national government were to return.
🟠 This is, in fact, what is at stake in this election. We must place our trust in a government that will continue to stand up for Hungarian interests after April — which is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
…because today is the era of strong leaders. We may think this is good or bad, we may think whatever we want about it, but we see that politics today is conducted in the language of power. Trump speaks this language, the Chinese speak this language, the Turkish president speaks this language. Europe does not speak this language — Viktor Orbán speaks this language in Europe.
And the reality is that Péter Magyar is not someone who could go there and, even for a single minute, stand firmly against more than twenty member states and the Brussels leadership to represent Hungarian interests decisively. Once again: someone who is incapable of firmly drawing lines and setting boundaries in their own life will not suddenly possess a different personality as the leader of a country.
There are two things we would not be able to undo. First, if Ukraine is admitted to the European Union in the next cycle, some will say, “Well then, Péter Magyar will veto it,” or “He can still stop it later.” And then they will claim it is a great achievement if Ukraine joins six months later instead of earlier — as if that somehow proves he did not lie.
But we would not be able to remove Ukraine from the European Union once it is admitted. This is not like buying a phone in a store, trying it out, and returning it if you prefer another brand. It does not work that way.
The decisions made after April — and the decisions made by the country’s leader — will determine whether Ukraine joins the EU or not. If it does, everything comes with it: our money flows away, agricultural dumping products arrive, our own economy is effectively undermined, and enormous sums will be required to finance Ukraine within the European Union.
And let us not forget that efforts are underway to take away Hungary’s veto right — our current legal ability, in certain matters, to block decisions that require unanimity within the European Union. If Péter Magyar gives that up, Viktor Orbán would not be able to reverse it later. Nor could he remove Ukraine from the EU once admitted. After 2026, it would not be possible to undo such decisions.
🟠 Szentkirályi Alexandra’s Communication – Propaganda Analysis
The text represents a classic, multi-layered mobilization narrative. Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ “Age of Dangers” – Permanent Threat Framing
📌 Technique: “In times of danger,” “the age of strong leaders,” “politics is conducted in the language of power.”
🎯 Goal: To frame the election as an extraordinary historical moment.
💥 Effect: Rational evaluation is replaced by existential fear. “This is not the time to experiment.”
2️⃣ Invoking the International Power Hierarchy
📌 Technique: Positioning Orbán Viktor on the same level as global actors: Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
🎯 Goal: Authority transfer. If they are “strong,” then the one who “speaks their language” must also be strong.
💥 Effect: Voters evaluate status rather than policy.
3️⃣ Personal Discrediting (Ad Hominem)
📌 Technique: Referring to Magyar Péter’s private life → “someone who cannot even keep order in his own life.”
🎯 Goal: Reducing political competence to a personal character flaw.
The Tisza supporters are outraged because the government has raised the terrorism threat level. In times of danger, the country must not be entrusted to irresponsible people!
Right on schedule, Facebook comments have started pouring in from the hard core of Tisza supporters, mocking the fact that the Defense Council has raised the terrorism threat level. “Orbán is just fearmongering,” they say. “This shows they’re in trouble. There is no danger at all. Iran is far away from Hungary.”
Well yes — this is the same hate-filled bubble that keeps insisting there is no war. There is a war in our neighborhood, and the Middle East is literally in flames. I would also like to remind even the members of the hard core that Péter Magyar’s bosses in Brussels have, over the past more than ten years, allowed masses of illegal migrants into the European Union — thereby importing Middle Eastern tensions into Europe.
So in a situation like this, it is entirely possible that extremists may want to take revenge in Europe for attacks against Iran or the Arab world.
For the responsible Hungarian government — unlike the irresponsible Facebook opposition — the safety of the Hungarian people comes first and foremost. That is why the terrorism threat level has been raised.
Go ahead, you can continue posting your nonsense comments.
1️⃣ Enemy Image Construction (“Tisza hard core,” “hate-filled bubble”)
📌 Technique: Portrays opposition commenters as a homogeneous, extremist group.
🎯 Goal: To delegitimize criticism — it’s not an argument, just a “bubble.”
💥 Effect: Followers don’t examine the actual question (Was the threat-level increase justified?) but immediately pick a side.
2️⃣ Fear Appeal by Referencing Global Chaos
📌 Technique: “War next door,” “the Middle East is in flames,” “extremists seeking revenge.”
🎯 Goal: To evoke a sense of worldwide instability instead of focusing on the concrete Hungarian situation.
💥 Effect: The proportionality of the measure is no longer evaluated — in “times of danger,” everything seems justified.
3️⃣ Shifting Blame (“Brussels let them in”)
📌 Technique: Links the migration debate directly to the terrorism threat level.
🎯 Goal: To frame the government’s decision as preventive while portraying the opposition as irresponsible.
💥 Effect: Criticism of the measure becomes equated with pro-migration naïveté.
4️⃣ False Dilemma
📌 Technique: “Responsible government” vs. “irresponsible Facebook opposition.”
🎯 Goal: To reduce the debate to two extremes.
💥 Effect: Middle-ground positions (e.g., “ensure security, but transparently”) disappear.
5️⃣ Preemptive Discrediting (“Go ahead and keep commenting your nonsense”)
📌 Technique: Intellectual belittling of debate partners.
🎯 Goal: To shut down discussion before substantive questions can arise.
💥 Effect: Followers do not question — they applaud.
🎯 The Narrative’s Deep Structure
Basic formula:
Global chaos → Brussels’ fault → Extremist threat → Responsible government protects the country → Whoever doubts is naïve or dangerous.
This is a classic security-mobilization frame:
fear → external enemy → internal traitor → strong leadership.
🔎 What Is Missing from the Communication?
Concrete, verifiable information about the reasons for raising the threat level
Details of the risk assessment
Time limitations
Justification of proportionality
The emphasis is not on professional transparency, but on emotional mobilization.
❗ Ukrainian blackmail is unprecedented even in a decades-long perspective. The oil blockade and threats associated with Zelensky demand heightened attention in this wartime situation, which is why the government has decided to place the most important energy facilities under military protection.
Hungary will not allow itself to be intimidated! 🇭🇺
From the moment a neighboring country, in such a vulnerable situation as the one Hungary or Slovakia currently faces from an energy standpoint, chooses not to cooperate but instead effectively tries to undermine and blackmail us, that constitutes an astonishing attack on Hungary’s energy security — something we have not experienced for years, perhaps even decades.
It is also evident that the Ukrainians have something to hide. When the Slovak and Hungarian prime ministers propose allowing an independent fact-finding committee from the two countries to examine whether there are indeed technical or engineering obstacles preventing oil deliveries, Ukraine refuses to allow it. This strongly suggests that the issue is not technical difficulties, but rather a deliberate action against Hungary’s energy security.
Given that reports continue to indicate that the threat has not diminished and that the pressure and blackmail have not eased, the Prime Minister has decided to place the most critical and most vulnerable energy facilities and institutions under military protection.
It is deeply regrettable that we must even discuss defending ourselves in this way against a neighboring country.
1️⃣ Framing it as “Blackmail” and “Attack”
Technique: Elevating an economic/supply dispute into a military-moral category:
“Ukrainian blackmail”
“Unprecedented attack”
“Threat”
Goal: To present the energy issue not as a policy debate, but as a matter of national security aggression.
Effect: The audience no longer asks: What is the technical situation? Instead, they ask: Who is attacking us?
2️⃣ Implying Intentionality Without Evidence
Technique: “They are not allowing the commission in → therefore it must be deliberate.”
Goal: To transform uncertainty into certainty.
Effect: A logical leap begins to function as emotional proof.
3️⃣ Dramatizing Military Protection
Technique: Emphasizing that facilities are being placed “under military protection.”
Goal: To maximize the perceived severity of the threat. To strengthen the government’s role as “protector.”
Technique: “We have not seen anything like this for decades.”
Goal: To signal an extraordinary situation.
Effect: Crisis awareness → internal cohesion.
5️⃣ Moral Contrast
Technique: “We are cooperative, they are not.”
Goal: To establish moral superiority.
Effect: The conflict is framed not as a dispute between two sides, but as good vs. bad.
🧠 The Deeper Narrative
Simplified structure:
Ukraine (intentionally) → threatens Hungary → defends The government → protects
This is a classic siege-state framing.
⚖️ What Is Worth Separating Calmly
You — who regularly analyze the Adria vs. Druzhba capacity debate, the Janaf–MOL dispute, and the sanctions-related legal questions — know that three distinct issues are being merged here:
We will make Rákospalota great! Long live the youth!
Another poster has found its owner. Dominik Fodor is here. Hello, thank you very much for coming. My pleasure. What will happen to the poster? Well, I’ll put it up in my room, because the future of the country is important to me. Young people, the future is yours. A safe choice. Thanks again for coming. You’re welcome. Let’s go! It’s yours!
Tóth Roland, a right-wing influencer, visited me a few days ago. I told him as well that in North Pest, the DK politician Balázs Barkóczi is the number one Brussels candidate. He is the one who must be defeated!
Can you say anything about yesterday’s poster vandalism? The whole thing started when I saw young people from Újpalota in the 15th district taking photos with my campaign poster — they were out at the metro and on the streets. So I told them that if they write me an email, I’ll gladly give them a poster. They shouldn’t climb up poles to get one, because that’s dangerous.
Last night, around 10 p.m., behind the market hall, I ran into a real poster vandal in person. He had a half-broken poster with Balázs’s face under his arm. At first the atmosphere was tense, but then we talked for quite a while. We ended up agreeing that he has a 16-year-old son, and that I should think carefully during the remaining — at that time — 45 days about what the right decision is. We parted peacefully.
I like talking with everyone — even opposition supporters, Tisza supporters, and DK supporters — here in this constituency, with both Tisza and DK voters, about what the real stakes are on April 12.
And I can say this: Fidesz is the safe choice. Let’s go! Let’s go!
🧠 Balázska – Analysis of Influence Techniques and the “Paid Status” Narrative
🎯 Context
Actors:
Barkóczi Balázs
Tóth Roland
The text presents a classic campaign scenario: influencer visit, poster vandalism, personal confrontation → ultimately ending in a conciliatory, “statesmanlike” closure.
1️⃣ Enemy Framing
Technique: “The number one Brussels candidate” – labeling.
Goal: To simplify the election into a personalized “Brussels vs. us” axis.
Effect: The political competition shifts from a programmatic debate to a moral struggle.
2️⃣ Suggestion of Paid Status / Embeddedness
Element: “Visited by a right-wing influencer” – communicating cooperation.
What is happening here?
Demonstration of network power
Display of an informal campaign machinery
Borrowing legitimacy through the influencer
Important questions (rarely asked):
Is this spontaneous support?
Or coordinated campaign communication?
Is there financial cooperation behind it?
👉 “Paid status” is often not direct money transfer, but rather:
campaign coordination
audience reach exchange
media support
3️⃣ Hero Narrative Construction (Poster Vandal Story)
