The DK and Tisza are dangerous ❗️ They have made a pact with Brussels and Kyiv and want to bring a pro-Ukraine government to power.
What are the experiences of the past few days? I can only say positive things. Lots of smiles, encouragement, support — we collected a great number of signatures. A few sharp looks, one or two head shakes, and a couple of DK and Tisza supporters who tried to provoke and argue, but we handled them.
I even received some “gifts.” Yesterday I got a Barkóczi Balázs pen — he is Brussels’ number one candidate in North Pest — from DK supporters. And today I received a Tisza sticker. They’re cute and kind, but you must not vote for them because they are dangerous. They would align with the Brussels mainstream and drag Hungary into war. Both parties support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union — it would cost us a fortune — and they are not bothered even if Hungary is cut off from cheap Russian energy.
In that case, the utility price cuts would be finished, fuel prices would rise above 1,000 forints, and the Hungarian economy would be devastated. So not them — Fidesz is the safe choice.
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis
Narrative:
“Brussels–Kyiv pact + drift toward war + economic collapse → Fidesz as the only safe choice”
Actors:
Barkóczi Balázs
Demokratikus Koalíció
Tisza Párt
Fidesz
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ External Conspiracy Narrative – “They made a pact with Brussels and Kyiv”
📌 Technique:
- Referring to external forces (“Brussels,” “Kyiv”).
- Use of the word “pact” → suggests a secret agreement.
- Questioning the sovereignty of opposition parties.
🎯 Goal:
To transform the election from a domestic political debate into a sovereignty issue:
“Hungarian interests vs. foreign interests.”
💥 Effect:
The audience evaluates loyalty rather than policy programs.
2️⃣ Existential Fear Appeal – “war danger,” “the economy would collapse”
📌 Technique:
- Dramatic language: “drag the country into war,” “we’d lose everything,” “the economy would be ruined.”
- Introducing a concrete number: “fuel would rise above 1,000 forints.”
- Oversimplified causal chain (EU accession → energy cutoff → economic collapse).
🎯 Goal:
To activate security concerns among undecided voters.
💥 Effect:
The political debate shifts from rational policy discussion to emotional terrain (fear, loss aversion).
3️⃣ “Friendly but Dangerous” Framing
📌 Technique:
- Apparent goodwill: “they’re nice, kind.”
- Immediate contrast: “but dangerous.”
- Moral dichotomy: kindness ≠ responsibility.
🎯 Goal:
To delegitimize the opponent without appearing openly aggressive.
💥 Effect:
Listeners may think: “They’re not personal enemies, but they pose a risk.”
4️⃣ Energy Security Panic – “They would cut Hungary off from cheap Russian energy”
📌 Technique:
- Presenting cheap energy as a tool of national survival.
- Utility price caps framed as an identity-defining policy.
- Simple causal model: opposition → energy cutoff → price explosion.
🎯 Goal:
To mobilize economic anxieties.
💥 Effect:
Voters approach the political choice through everyday cost-of-living concerns.
5️⃣ Positive Self-Framing – “Lots of smiles and support”
📌 Technique:
- Reinforcing the speaker’s own camp.
- Creating a “we are the majority” atmosphere.
- Impression of overwhelming public backing.
🎯 Goal:
To generate a bandwagon effect (people prefer to side with the perceived winner).
💥 Effect:
Undecided voters may gravitate toward the “safe” and seemingly dominant option.
📌 Overall Picture
This communication pattern simultaneously uses:
- An external enemy image
- Existential fear appeals
- Economic alarmism
- Moral loyalty framing
- Self-legitimization as the “safe choice”
The core message is not about policy details, but this:
“The other side is risk. We are safety.”