We are ready! We will defeat the Brussels-backed candidate, Balázs Barkóczi, in North Pest! We will preserve peace and security, and we will not allow the money of North Pest families to be sent to Ukraine!
In less than half a day, my first individual parliamentary campaign begins. We have fifty intense days ahead of us in this final stretch, and the team has done an excellent job. In the past few days, there was even time for a refreshing evening ski in the Mátra mountains. So tomorrow, we start.
On my way here, I saw that fresh opinion poll data had been released from three individual districts. In some of them, Fidesz is confidently leading—even though opposition pollsters had long ago written those districts off for the opposition, for Tisza. Well, there will be surprises on April 12. From our perspective, positive surprises; from the perspective of the hate-driven opposition, a major setback.
In our district, where I am running in North Pest, the special feature is that we are not competing against a Tisza candidate, but against the current number one Brussels-backed candidate, the Democratic candidate. The politician of this special coalition is Balázs Barkóczi. He has been the local Member of Parliament for four years. He has done nothing, and now he represents the policy of the European empire: support for Ukraine’s EU accession and the continuation of the war.
So it will be a showdown: a pro-war incumbent MP versus me, representing the pro-peace side and Fidesz’s offer. It will be a big match. I’m looking forward to the battle with Balázs Barkóczi. In the end, I hope for a pro-peace victory nationwide and in North Pest as well.
Let’s go!
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis – The “Pro-Peace vs. Pro-War Battle” Narrative
The text follows a classic campaign structure: war – Brussels – Ukraine – peace – battle – surprise.
I will break it down in the usual format: Technique – Goal – Effect.
1️⃣ “Brussels candidate” – External control framing
📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + agent labeling
👉 The opponent is portrayed not as a local politician, but as “Brussels’ man.”
👉 The focus shifts from policy to loyalty.
🎯 Goal:
– Turn the election into an act of national self-defense
– Undermine the opponent’s legitimacy
💥 Effect:
Voters stop asking: What has this MP actually done?
Instead they ask: Whose man is he?
2️⃣ “We won’t let them send our money to Ukraine” – Existential financial fear
📌 Technique: fear appeal + zero-sum framing
👉 It suggests: if they win → we lose our money.
👉 The national budget is framed like a family wallet that can be “taken away.”
🎯 Goal:
– Trigger immediate pocketbook anxiety
– Morally delegitimize support for Ukraine
💥 Effect:
A complex foreign-policy issue becomes a direct livelihood threat.
3️⃣ “Pro-war vs. pro-peace” – Moral binary framing
📌 Technique: false dilemma + moral polarization
👉 Only two camps are presented:
– them = war
– us = peace
🎯 Goal:
– Claim the moral high ground
– Close the debate (“Who could possibly be against peace?”)
💥 Effect:
Voters no longer see nuances — only good versus bad.
4️⃣ “Hateful opposition” – Enemy construction
📌 Technique: emotional labeling
👉 The opponent is not a political rival, but an emotionally negative force.
🎯 Goal:
– Strengthen in-group cohesion
– Dehumanize the other side
💥 Effect:
Political competition turns into an identity battle.
5️⃣ “There will be a surprise” – Pre-declared victory narrative
📌 Technique: expectation management + bandwagon effect
👉 Polls are relativized.
👉 “We know something.”
🎯 Goal:
– Mobilize the base
– Suggest inevitability of victory
💥 Effect:
Voters may feel it’s worth joining the winning side.
6️⃣ Personal skiing reference – Humanizing strategy
📌 Technique: casual authenticity framing
👉 “An evening ski session in the Mátra to clear my head.”
🎯 Goal:
– Build a fighter-yet-ordinary persona
– Soften the intense war rhetoric
💥 Effect:
A hard political message is paired with a relaxed, relatable image.
🎯 Overall Picture
The structural chain of the narrative:
Brussels → Ukraine → taking our money → war → we = peace → victory is near
This is not a policy debate.
It is identity- and security-framed campaign communication.
The real questions worth asking — which may cognitively activate even pro-government voters:
👉 If there are truly only two options — war or peace —
which specific concrete decision is currently on the agenda that would send Hungarian soldiers abroad?
👉 Where is the official document mandating mandatory participation in Ukraine?
👉 If no such document exists, why is the campaign framed as war versus peace?