We will not allow Hungarians’ money to be taken to Ukraine, and we will not allow the abolition of the utility cost reduction scheme. We’re starting on Saturday!! 👍

At the Újpest Market, opposite the Újpalota Market Hall at the usual spot, and at the Rákospalota Market on Wesselényi Street. We will be present at all three locations on Saturday between 9 and 11 a.m.

We are collecting endorsements and showing that many of us stand on the side of peace. We will show that we will not allow our money to be sent to Ukraine or the utility cost reduction to be scrapped. And we will not only win on Saturday, but also in April. Therefore, Fidesz is the safe choice.

1️⃣ “We will not allow it…” – Defensive, combative framing

📌 Technique: threat framing + collective resistance narrative
👉 The sentence does not open a debate; it assumes an immediate danger.
👉 “We will not allow it” takes a combative stance.

🎯 Goal:

Activate a sense of external threat

Mobilize supporters on an emotional basis

💥 Effect:
The election is no longer about policy programs, but about “we must defend ourselves.”

---

2️⃣ “They will take our money to Ukraine” – Simplified enemy image

📌 Technique: external scapegoating + financial fear appeal
👉 It simplifies the complex issue of public spending into:
“If they come → they take your money.”

🎯 Goal:

Build on economic insecurity

Turn the war topic into a domestic political threat

💥 Effect:
The listener does not evaluate geopolitics, but thinks about their own utility bill.

---

3️⃣ “They will abolish utility price caps” – Loss framing

📌 Technique: loss framing (fear of loss)
👉 It does not focus on what you would gain, but on what you could lose.

🎯 Goal:

Protect the status quo

Tie the ruling party to a sense of security

💥 Effect:
The decision becomes irrationally risk-averse
(“better to keep things as they are”).

---

4️⃣ “There are many of us” – Bandwagon effect

📌 Technique: bandwagon effect + collective identity
👉 “Let’s show how many we are.”
👉 Belonging to a crowd provides emotional safety.

🎯 Goal:

Reduce doubts

Demonstrate strength and legitimacy

💥 Effect:
Individual uncertainty dissolves into group identity.

---

5️⃣ Naming specific markets – Localized mobilization

🟢 Újpest Market
🟢 Újpalota Market Hall
🟢 Rákospalota Market (Veselényi Street)

📌 Technique: direct street mobilization + demonstration of physical presence
👉 Politics “comes down to the street.”
👉 Not an online debate, but in-person recruitment.

🎯 Goal:

Collect endorsements

Strengthen activist networks

Increase local visibility

💥 Effect:
Supporters feel they are part of a real, tangible movement.

---

6️⃣ “Peace party” – Moral self-positioning

📌 Technique: moral high-ground framing
👉 One side = peace
👉 The other side implicitly = war

🎯 Goal:

Establish moral superiority

Close the debate on moral grounds

💥 Effect:
Anyone who disagrees becomes “not pro-peace.”

---

7️⃣ “Fidesz is the safe choice” – Stability narrative

📌 Technique: certainty framing
👉 It does not speak about policy, but about security.

🎯 Goal:

Win over undecided voters

Activate risk-avoidance instincts

💥 Effect:
The election becomes framed as security vs. uncertainty.

---

🧠 Summary – What structure is this?

This is a classic:

Threat → Protection → Community → Security narrative.

External enemy (Ukraine, money being taken away)

Internal defense (“we will not allow it”)

Mass identity (“there are many of us”)

Stable solution (Fidesz = safe choice)

“The national petition is about to be submitted, because I am also among those who do not want our money to be sent to Ukraine, do not want our money to be spent on the war, or to see Hungarian families’ utility costs increase because of the war. So, quite simply, this is how we in Hungary can say no to the horrors of war.”

🔴 1️⃣ “National petition” – legitimization and collective authority

Technique: authority framing + collective legitimacy

The phrase “national petition” suggests that:

• it is backed by broad social consensus,
• it carries moral and national weight,
• anyone who disagrees is “not with the nation.”

📌 The trick:
It is not disclosed:

• who initiated it,
• who signed it,
• how many people did so,
• what legal or political consequences it actually has.

👉 The word “national” shuts down debate before it even begins.

---

🔴 2️⃣ “Our money” – emotional ownership framing

Technique: ownership framing + loss aversion

• “our money” is repeated multiple times,
• it creates a sense of personal loss:
  • as if money were being taken directly from you,
  • as if immediate financial harm were occurring.

📌 Reality:
It is never stated:

• what money is being referred to,
• how much money,
• whether it is direct or indirect,
• what the actual decision-making mechanism is.

👉 The goal is not understanding, but triggering gut-level resistance.

---

🔴 3️⃣ War = utility price hikes – causal short-circuit

Technique: false causality + fear linkage

“…to see Hungarian families’ utility costs increase because of the war”

This sentence conflates:

• the war,
• energy prices,
• government decisions.

📌 Missing elements:

• alternative causes,
• market factors,
• the role of domestic energy policy.

👉 This allows responsibility to be shifted outward:
“We are not raising prices — the war is.”

---

🔴 4️⃣ “Quite simply” – devaluing thinking

Technique: simplification framing

“So, quite simply…”

A complex geopolitical and economic issue
→ is reduced to an emotional, moral choice.

📌 Implicit message:

• no need to think,
• no need to ask questions,
• the morally correct answer is already given.

👉 Anyone who tries to add nuance becomes:
“pro-war,” “insensitive,” or “overcomplicating.”

---

🔴 5️⃣ “We in Hungary” – identity appropriation

Technique: in-group framing / us vs. them

• “we in Hungary”
• implies that:
  • there is one “true” Hungarian position,
  • those who disagree are outside of it.

📌 This is no longer framed as a difference of opinion,
but as a matter of identity and loyalty.

👉 The debate turns into a loyalty test.

---

🔴 6️⃣ “The horrors of war” – emotional closure

Technique: moral shock framing

The phrase “the horrors of war” serves as:

• maximum emotional charge,
• a moral shield.

📌 Its function:

• to close the discussion,
• to block further questions:
  • “how?”
  • “what is the alternative?”
  • “what are the consequences?”

👉 Anyone who asks is accused of
“relativizing the horrors.”

---

🧩 Overall picture

This message does not inform. Instead, it:

• links fear to money,
• claims moral superiority,
• appropriates collective identity,
• and offers a false binary choice:

Either you are with us → or you are with the war.

Brussels has said that it wants to be ready for a war against Russia by 2030.
All preparations for this will take place over the next four years.
Whether or not we take part in this will depend on the decision of the next Hungarian government.
If Brussels’ people come to power, we will also step onto the path of war.
If Viktor Orbán remains in government, we will stay on the Hungarian path, the path of peace.
That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

In Brussels it has been stated that by 2030 Europe must be ready for a war against Russia. This also means that all preparations for this will be carried out over the next four years, so the Hungarian government elected in 2026 will decide how Hungary positions itself on this issue. If Brussels’ people come to power, then we can be certain that we will step onto the path of war, and also onto the path that requires us to give our money to Ukraine as well. If, however, Viktor Orbán remains in government, he will continue not to allow Hungary to be dragged into this war, nor to allow Hungarian money to be taken to Ukraine.
This will be what is at stake in April, and that is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

🔴 1️⃣ “Brussels wants war by 2030” – strategic distortion

Technique: fear projection + future certainty framing

“Being prepared” is not the same as saying that someone:

• “wants war”
• “will start a war”
• “will drag everyone into it”

This is a defensive preparedness discourse (which is not surprising on a continent where a war is already ongoing), but it is deliberately reframed as aggressive intent.

👉 Message to the audience:

“The war is already decided. The only question is who will drag you into it.”

---

🔴 2️⃣ False binary: “Orbán = peace / everyone else = war”

Technique: false dilemma + savior framing

The text allows only two options:

• Orbán Viktor stays → peace
• “Brussels’ people” → war + taking your money

❌ There is no:

• alternative policy
• nuance
• debate
• democratic control

This is religious logic, not political reasoning.

---

🔴 3️⃣ “Brussels’ people” – a faceless demon

Technique: faceless enemy construction

Nowhere does it say:

• who said it
• when
• where
• in what document

“Brussels” here is not a place, but an emotional monster.
Meanwhile, curiously, the following completely disappear:

• NATO membership
• EU membership
• shared decision-making

→ erased from the narrative.

---

🔴 4️⃣ Timed panic: “In 2026 we decide about war”

Technique: election = life-or-death switch

The election is framed not as a political cycle, but as:

“a switch between war and peace”

This is classic existential blackmail:

• you are not choosing a program
• you are choosing “survival or death”

---

🔴 5️⃣ “They will take Hungarians’ money to Ukraine” – gut-level loss framing

Technique: loss aversion + economic fear

There is:

• no amount
• no mechanism
• no legal framework

Only this remains:

“THEY ARE TAKING YOUR MONEY.”

The goal is not understanding, but anger + fear.

---

🔴 6️⃣ Repetition = feeling of truth

Technique: repetition illusion

The same claim repeated three times:

• 2030
• the next four years
• the 2026 government

This is not new information —
it is emotional imprinting.

---

🔴 7️⃣ Closing line: “That’s why Fidesz is the safe choice”

Technique: manufactured inevitability

After:

• painting a war apocalypse
• eliminating all alternatives

👉 in the end, you are no longer deciding — you are simply fleeing toward Fidesz.

---

📌 SUMMARY – WHAT DOES THIS TEXT ACTUALLY DO?

✔️ It does not inform
✔️ It does not analyze
✔️ It does not debate

❌ Instead, it:

• envisions war
• manufactures an enemy
• offers a savior
• monetizes panic into votes

This is not peace policy —
👉 it is a campaign technique built on fear.

The Tisza “country of love” proves itself yet again! 😂

Let me tell you a lovely little story. The Tisza supporters have come up with a new prank. Since I have two email addresses publicly available on the internet—so that voters, North Pest voters, or in fact anyone in the country can stay in touch with me, which is kind of the whole point of being a representative, or even a candidate—they decided to target those email addresses.

They started registering my email addresses on thousands of different platforms. I’ve received thousands of notifications from adult websites, betting sites, sports sites—messages saying that someone has registered or attempted to register using my email address.

They incite, they provoke, they spread hatred, and they want to cause harm at any cost. Meanwhile, we are dealing with the country and with the future of the Hungarian people. That’s the difference.

Fortunately, after April 12, they will calm down too.

1️⃣ “Love Country” – pre-emptive mocking framing

“The Tisza ‘Love Country’ proves itself again!”

This is not a description, but labeling.
Putting the word “love” in quotation marks = irony → the opponent is framed as hypocritical from the outset.

👉 Function:
Before any facts are presented, the speaker places themselves in a position of moral superiority.

---

2️⃣ The storytelling trap (“Let me tell you…”)

“Let me tell you a nice little story.”

This is not evidence, but an anecdote.
There is no:

• technical proof
• timestamp
• IP address / source
• police report
• service provider confirmation

👉 The audience is not meant to verify — only to feel.

---

3️⃣ Imposing collective guilt

“The Tisza supporters came up with a new prank…”

There is no specific perpetrator → every Tisza supporter becomes guilty.

This is a classic case of collective guilt:

• no names
• no individuals
• no chain of responsibility

👉 An entire political community is criminalized.

---

4️⃣ Disgust and fear triggers

“adult sites, betting sites…”

This is not a random list:

• adult content → moral disgust
• gambling → deviance
• “thousands” → shock value

👉 The goal is emotional repulsion, not fact-finding.

---

5️⃣ Assigning motives without proof

“They incite, provoke, spread hatred, they want to cause harm.”

This is mind-reading.
It does not state what happened, but why it allegedly happened — without evidence.

👉 This is psychological suggestion:
“they are bad, we are good.”

---

6️⃣ Moral binary framing (US vs THEM)

“While we focus on the country…”

A clean binary framework:

US	THEM
country	harm
future	hatred
calm	provocation

👉 Politically, this is an identity war, not a debate.

---

7️⃣ Timed reassurance = veiled threat

“After April 12, they will calm down as well.”

This suggests two things at once:

• We will win
• After that, you will fall silent

👉 This is not reconciliation — it is a power message.

---

🧠 Overall picture – what is this really?

❌ Not fact-finding
❌ Not a legal matter
❌ Not a proven attack

✅ Delegitimization wrapped in a victim narrative
✅ Collective scapegoating
✅ Emotional disgust + moral panic
✅ “We are order” messaging

This is not about what happened to an email address,
but about who is considered a legitimate political actor.