Share this so that everyone can see Péter Magyar’s so-called “country of love”!

An aggressive Tisza activist was shouting at elderly women in the street.
This is where the incitement, agitation, and stream of lies that the Tisza spreads every day lead.

As women, we will have a special responsibility on April 12 to say no to this violent world and to stand for a world of peace and calm instead.

You shouldn’t do so much coke, because unfortunately it makes people this stupid.
Did you see that little guy pumping himself up, that Tisza activist called “Thanos”?
Where is the 1.7 billion? Where is the 1.7 billion? Where is the 1.7 billion?

Well, this guy — let’s put it this way — went up to elderly women who were standing at a Fidesz booth and spoke to them in a completely unacceptable manner.

I don’t know — do you have a mother or a grandmother?
How would you feel if someone went up to them, spoke to them like that, and recorded it while doing so?

It’s unbelievably low and trashy behavior.
You shouldn’t do so much coke, because unfortunately it makes people this stupid.

And that’s exactly why you won’t win the election.
Anyone who treats others like this — and whose supporters behave like you — certainly won’t gain people’s trust in April.

1️⃣ Topic diversion (redirection)

Key sentence:

“An aggressive Tisza activist was shouting at elderly women on the street.”

📌 Technique:
The real issue is the disappearance of 1.7 billion forints, but the communication suddenly shifts attention to a street confrontation.

🎯 Goal:
To move public discussion away from the money and accountability, and toward an emotionally charged incident.

💥 Effect:
The audience no longer asks:
“Where is the 1.7 billion?”
but instead asks:
“Why was an activist shouting?”

---

2️⃣ Generalizing a single incident

Key sentence:

“This is what the incitement, agitation, and flood of lies that Tisza spreads every day leads to.”

📌 Technique:
A single conflict is presented as the behavior of an entire political community.

🎯 Goal:
To frame an individual action as the consequence of a whole political movement.

💥 Effect:
A simple narrative forms in the viewer’s mind:

one activist → entire political side

---

3️⃣ Moral framing

Key sentence:

“We women will have a special responsibility…”

📌 Technique:
The conflict is reframed as a moral and identity-based issue.

🎯 Goal:
To present voting not as a political choice, but as a moral decision.

💥 Effect:
Anyone who disagrees is implicitly placed on the “violent side.”

---

4️⃣ Personal discrediting (ad hominem)

Key phrases:

• “a Tisza activist called Thanos”
• “you shouldn’t take this much coke”
• “that’s why someone becomes this stupid”

📌 Technique:
The discussion is shifted from the actual question to attacking the person asking it.

🎯 Goal:
To make the opponent appear ridiculous or primitive.

💥 Effect:
The audience laughs at or gets angry at the person, instead of focusing on the substance of the question.

---

5️⃣ Emotional manipulation (grandmother frame)

Key sentence:

“Do you have a mother or a grandmother?”

📌 Technique:
The story is framed with family and generational emotions.

🎯 Goal:
To make the event appear morally much more severe.

💥 Effect:
People react emotionally rather than rationally.

---

6️⃣ Repeated avoidance of the main question

Interestingly, the text only mentions the question as a quote:

“Where is the 1.7 billion?”

📌 Technique:
The question is never actually answered.
Instead, it is used only to criticize the behavior of the person asking it.

🎯 Goal:
To shift the focus from the content of the question to the tone of the questioner.

💥 Effect:
The debate transforms from:

financial accountability → behavioral controversy

---

✅ Summary

The core communication strategy consists of:

• Diverting attention away from the 1.7-billion-forint issue
• Amplifying a single conflict
• Moral framing (“women”, “peace”)
• Personal discrediting
• Emotional manipulation (the “grandmother” narrative)

As a result, the speech is not about the money or accountability, but about an emotionally charged conflict that shifts attention away from the real question.

“It would be such a shame if something happened to this beautiful place. There are so many bad people around. But don’t worry — we will protect your business if you show your gratitude.”

In the 1990s, restaurants, accommodation providers, entertainment venues, pubs, and shops across the country were confronted with the previously unknown “institution” of protection money. For the younger generation — many of whom have only seen such things in gangster movies — this meant that groups of rough-looking Slavic men would show up at successful businesses and simply blackmail the owners. If they did not pay regular protection money, something might happen to the owner, their family, or the establishment itself. Or the place could suddenly be flooded with people who would ruin the business. Of course, these groups could also “protect” the place from such problems — in exchange for a clearly visible sum of money.

In Hungary, in the years following the political transition, this was one of the common methods used by the Ukrainian mafia operating in the country. They believed that what was yours was somehow owed to them; that they could dispose of it, extort you over it, and that if you wanted to keep what belonged to you, you had to pay so they would leave you “in peace.”

Doesn’t that attitude sound eerily familiar?

According to President Zelensky, Hungarians should be grateful that the Druzhba pipeline has not been shut down so far… and since we apparently are not grateful enough, it is now being kept closed for various alleged technical reasons — unless we also pay for that.

During the four years of war, this well-known Ukrainian method has become a basic element of state communication. President Zelensky makes demands, sets conditions, applies pressure, and regularly returns to ask European countries for money in exchange for “protection.” Hundreds of billions of euros, handed over without restraint — even though we all know that this money, even when some call it a loan, will never be seen again.

Of course, when a country suffers the horrors of war, every form of help is another breath of life. But if we are talking about gratitude, shouldn’t it perhaps be the president whose country we — the member states of the European Union — have been supporting for years at our own expense who should feel grateful?

“A tithe for Druzhba,” says Ukrainian President Zelensky. Yet the operation of the Druzhba pipeline is not an option but an obligation arising from international treaties, association agreements, and the Energy Charter Treaty. It is often said that gratitude is not a political category. But if gratitude is not one, then blackmail certainly is not either.

In Hungary in the 1990s, the extortion carried out by the Ukrainian mafia was brought to an end by the first Fidesz government. That required firm and courageous decisions, and every Hungarian benefited from them. It will be no different now — because Hungary cannot be blackmailed today any more than it could back then.

1️⃣ Historical Analogy – Mafia Framing

Key element:
The text begins with the “protection money” system of the 1990s.

📌 Technique:
Use of historical analogy: Ukrainian state policy is compared to organized crime.

🎯 Goal:
To create a strong emotional frame in the reader’s mind:
Ukraine = mafia.

💥 Effect:
The energy policy debate is transformed into a moral issue where one side is portrayed as a “criminal”.

---

2️⃣ Demonization of the Enemy

Key sentence:
“this was one of the typical methods of the Ukrainian mafia”

📌 Technique:
Assigning a negative collective identity to an entire country or its political leadership.

🎯 Goal:
To move the conflict onto a personal and moral level.

💥 Effect:
The reader no longer sees a geopolitical dispute, but a “blackmailing enemy.”

---

3️⃣ Presenting Assumed Motives Without Evidence

Key element:
“they are keeping it closed without any technical reason”

📌 Technique:
An assumed intention is presented as fact without evidence.

🎯 Goal:
To simplify a technical or economic issue into a narrative of deliberate blackmail.

💥 Effect:
Readers are less likely to question the background of the situation.

---

4️⃣ Moral Victim Narrative

Key element:
“we, the EU member states, are supporting them at our own expense”

📌 Technique:
Construction of a collective victim identity.

🎯 Goal:
To trigger emotional identification among Hungarian and European audiences.

💥 Effect:
The reader feels that they are being treated unfairly.

---

5️⃣ “Us vs. Them” Framing

Structure:

• Us: Hungarians and Europeans who are helping
• Them: Ukrainian leadership making demands

📌 Technique:
Building collective identity and an enemy image.

🎯 Goal:
Strong political polarization.

💥 Effect:
The conflict becomes a simplified moral confrontation.

---

6️⃣ National Pride and Heroic Political Narrative

Key element:
“the first Fidesz government put an end to it”

📌 Technique:
Recalling a historical political success.

🎯 Goal:
To legitimize the current political position by referencing a past “victory”.

💥 Effect:
In the voter’s mind a connection forms:
“they protected us then → they will protect us now.”

---

7️⃣ Dramatization and Emotional Language

Key terms used:

• “blackmail”
• “making demands”
• “tribute”
• “mafia”

📌 Technique:
Use of strongly emotional and charged vocabulary.

🎯 Goal:
To provoke an emotional reaction from the reader.

💥 Effect:
The discussion shifts from policy debate to emotionally driven conflict.

---

✅ Summary

The main propaganda frame of the text:

• 1990s mafia → Ukrainian politics
• Blackmail → energy policy
• We help → they demand
• Fidesz protects the country

This is a classic enemy-image + historical analogy + national protection narrative.

Captain Shell and Péter Magyar — how can you lie this much?!

They claim that fuel is cheaper everywhere else and that taxes on it are lower everywhere else.
Well, in Croatia, Slovakia, Austria, Serbia, and Romania fuel is actually more expensive, and the taxes on it are higher too. And these are just the neighboring countries.

For example, Captain Shell himself should know that in the Shell’s home country, the Netherlands, a liter of fuel costs around 800 forints.

Stop this embarrassing flailing. For once, instead of standing with your friends in Brussels and Ukraine, stand with the Hungarian people and talk to your buddy Zelensky so that the oil pipeline can be reopened.

Frankly, it’s extremely embarrassing that “Captain Shell” cannot speak for even a minute about his own field of expertise without reading from a script. And it’s not about the price of crude oil, nor about production costs.

The other very embarrassing thing is that he is simply telling outright lies. He claims that fuel is much cheaper in every other country and that taxes on it are lower everywhere.

So here are just a few examples, Captain Shell, of countries where fuel is actually more expensive and taxes are higher: Croatia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Austria, just to mention the neighboring ones.

And in the Netherlands, Shell’s own home country, people pay around 800 forints per liter for fuel.

Stop this awkward struggle already. For once in your life, stand with the Hungarian people, instead of siding with Brussels and Ukraine.

🎭 1️⃣ Personal Attacks and Discrediting (Ad Hominem)

Key element:
“Shell Captain and Péter Magyar — how can they lie this much?!”
“Shell Captain cannot even speak about his own field of expertise.”

📌 Technique:
The debate is shifted away from the claims themselves and turned into a personal attack against individuals.

🎯 Goal:
To undermine the credibility of the opponent without engaging in a detailed professional or factual debate.

💥 Effect:
The audience no longer examines the real causes of fuel prices; instead, they are left with the impression that
“these people are lying.”

---

🎯 2️⃣ Repetitive Assertion (Propaganda Mantra)

Key element:
The same statements are repeated multiple times:

• “they are lying”
• “it is more expensive everywhere”
• “there are higher taxes everywhere”

📌 Technique:
Repeating the same claim in different forms.

🎯 Goal:
To increase the perceived truth of the statement simply through repetition.

💥 Effect:
The human brain tends to perceive frequently repeated claims as more truthful.

---

🌍 3️⃣ Selective Data Use (Cherry Picking)

Key sentence:
“Croatia, Slovakia, Austria, Serbia, Romania… fuel is more expensive there.”

📌 Technique:
Only examples that support the narrative are presented.

🎯 Goal:
To make the audience believe this is a general trend.

💥 Effect:
The full European price structure or tax system is not presented—only a curated list of examples.

---

⚔️ 4️⃣ External Enemy Narrative

Key sentence:
“You stand on the side of Brussels and Ukraine.”

📌 Technique:
The issue is reframed as part of an international political conflict.

🎯 Goal:
To frame the fuel-price debate not as an economic issue, but as a matter of national loyalty.

💥 Effect:
Anyone who disagrees is implicitly portrayed as “not standing with the Hungarian people.”

---

🇭🇺 5️⃣ “Us vs. Them” Identity Framing

Key elements:

• “stand on the side of the Hungarians”
• “Brussels and Ukraine”

📌 Technique:
Dividing the world into two opposing camps.

Structure:

• Us: Hungarians
• Them: Brussels / Ukraine / the opposition

🎯 Goal:
To trigger emotional loyalty.

💥 Effect:
The political debate becomes an identity issue rather than a policy discussion.

---

🔥 6️⃣ Mockery and Emotional Pressure

Key phrases:

• “embarrassing”
• “flailing”
• “Comrade Shell”

📌 Technique:
Use of ridicule and public shaming.

🎯 Goal:
To make the opponent appear ridiculous.

💥 Effect:
The audience perceives an emotional conflict rather than a professional or factual debate.

---

🎯 7️⃣ False Causal Link

Key sentence:
“Talk to your friend Zelensky and tell him to reopen the oil supply.”

📌 Technique:
The fuel-price issue is attributed to a single political decision.

🎯 Goal:
To assign a simple scapegoat.

💥 Effect:
A complex energy-policy system is reduced to a single political conflict.

---

🧠 Overall Picture

The text is not an economic argument, but a classic political propaganda structure, built on:

• personal attacks
• repeated assertions
• selective data
• external enemy framing
• national loyalty framing
• mockery and humiliation
• simplified scapegoating

📌 Goal:
To transform the fuel-price discussion into a political identity conflict rather than an economic debate.

Peace is not a refuge for the weak, but a decision made by the strong.

Throughout history, we Hungarian women have proven time and again that we are capable of standing firm even in the most difficult times. We do not wait for others, we do not complain — we act. When necessary, we held our families together from home; when needed, we organized our communities. And that is what is required today as well. That each of us, in our own place — as a teacher, an entrepreneur, a grandmother, or a mother — takes a step toward peace. Because if we do not raise our voices, others will speak for us — and they do not envision the future for Hungary that we believe in.

1️⃣ Moral Reframing – “peace = strength”

Key sentence:
“Peace is not the refuge of the weak, but the decision of the strong.”

📌 Technique:
Concept reinterpretation. “Peace” is framed not as passive, but as an active and powerful choice.

🎯 Goal:
To place the pro-peace position in a position of moral superiority.

💥 Effect:
Anyone who disagrees is implicitly framed as “weak” or irresponsible.

---

2️⃣ Collective Identity Building – “we, Hungarian women”

📌 Technique:
Combining national and gender identity.

🎯 Goal:
Emotional community-building and the creation of a closed, morally positive in-group.

💥 Effect:
The listener feels part of a historically proven, strong community.

---

3️⃣ Historical Reference Without Evidence

“Throughout history, we have proven again and again…”

📌 Technique:
General historical legitimization without concrete examples.

🎯 Goal:
To link the present political message to past heroism.

💥 Effect:
The message feels weightier and more “destiny-driven.”

---

4️⃣ Subtle Threat – “if we do not speak up…”

📌 Technique:
Implicit presentation of danger.

🎯 Goal:
Mobilization.

💥 Effect:
The choice is framed not as an option, but as a duty.

---

5️⃣ Destiny Narrative

“…they do not intend for Hungary the future we believe in.”

📌 Technique:
Introducing an unnamed, undefined “they.”

🎯 Goal:
To demonize an external or internal opponent without specifics.

💥 Effect:
The listener does not evaluate concrete policy programs, but feels they are choosing a “destiny.”

---

🎭 Overall Picture

The text:

• builds on emotional identification
• uses moral framing
• applies implicit threat
• contains no concrete policy elements
• aims at identity-based mobilization

This is classic campaign communication: emotion > identity > mobilization, rather than a presentation of specific policy proposals.

Just imagine what would have happened if Hungary had switched to liquefied natural gas — LNG — as the Tisza supporters kept suggesting, instead of relying on cheap Russian gas. Because of the Iranian conflict, a significant portion of LNG shipments has dropped out, meaning the countries that switched to LNG have ended up worse off.

Viktor Orbán, however, was forward-thinking, and as a result Hungary’s energy supply is now predictable and secure.

It is no coincidence that we pay the lowest energy prices in Europe.

The national government is capable of protecting Hungary’s energy security — which is why it absolutely matters who wins the election on April 12. Fidesz is the safe choice.

Just imagine what life would be like right now if we had switched to LNG instead of Russian gas. We can see that, because of the Iranian conflict, LNG shipments from that region are simply not arriving. How fortunate that Viktor Orbán was forward-looking in this matter as well, and that we have a predictable energy source from Russia. As far as it depends on us, this will remain the case after April 12, too.

1️⃣ Conditional Fear Framing (“Let’s imagine what would have happened…”)

📌 Technique:
It dramatizes a scenario that did not actually occur (“if we had switched to LNG…”).

🎯 Goal:
To evoke uncertainty and fear about an alternative option.

💥 Effect:
The audience does not evaluate real data, but instead reacts to an imagined crisis.

---

2️⃣ Projecting an External Conflict onto Domestic Politics

Reference: Iranian conflict → LNG disruption.

📌 Technique:
Links a global geopolitical event directly to domestic energy supply as an immediate threat.

🎯 Goal:
To elevate an energy policy debate into a national security issue.

💥 Effect:
“We would be in danger if we had chosen differently.”

---

3️⃣ Personal Heroization – “Viktor Orbán was farsighted”

📌 Technique:
Reduces a complex energy system to the strategic achievement of a single leader.

🎯 Goal:
To attach a sense of security to a specific political figure.

💥 Effect:
The decision shifts from a policy debate to a question of political loyalty.

---

4️⃣ Simplified Energy Framework

In reality, energy supply rests on multiple pillars:

• Russian pipeline gas
• LNG imports (indirectly, regionally)
• Storage capacity
• Market-based procurement

LNG does not arrive only from the “Iranian region,” but also from the U.S., Qatar, Norway, and others. The global market is more flexible than the text suggests.

---

5️⃣ Electoral Framing

“That’s why it matters who wins the election.”

📌 Technique:
Transforms a policy issue into a matter of electoral loyalty.

🎯 Goal:
To frame the election as a security referendum.

💥 Effect:
The debate shifts away from prices, contracts, and market structures toward the narrative of “protection.”

---

Summary

This text:

• builds on conditional fear
• oversimplifies how the LNG market functions
• personalizes supply security
• turns the election into a security ultimatum

Are they seriously expecting us to thank them as well?!

So yesterday President Zelensky gave a rather cynical response to our calls. He says we should be grateful to Ukraine — while at the same time shutting off the oil pipeline that supplies Hungary.

And no, this is not a misunderstanding: he also announced that he has no intention of reopening the Druzhba oil pipeline, despite the fact that Ukraine is obliged to do so under agreements concluded with the European Union.

Meanwhile, the Middle East has practically exploded, and yesterday gas prices and Western-type oil prices surged. The international situation is already extremely tense — and now they are making it even worse.

In this situation, Ukraine, Brussels, and the Tisza Party are working to phase out Russian energy, and they have sided with Zelensky even in the matter of the Ukrainian oil blockade. By doing so, they are seriously threatening the livelihood and security of the Hungarian people.

We must be determined and strong:

We do not want higher fuel prices.
We do not want higher utility bills.
We do not want to phase out cheap Russian energy.
And we will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed.

We will break the Ukrainian oil blockade and veto anything that helps Ukraine — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wrote a letter about this to Ursula von der Leyen today.

Let us stand up together for Hungary! Fidesz is the safe choice!

1️⃣ Organizing a “Foreign Enemy” Bloc

Actors aligned on a single axis:

• Volodymyr Zelenskyy
• European Commission
• Tisza Párt
• Viktor Orbán

📌 Technique: Coordinated conspiracy narrative.
🎯 Goal: Elevate a domestic political dispute into a national security attack.
💥 Effect: Voters are not weighing energy contracts, but instead feel that “the country is under attack.”

---

2️⃣ Moral Outrage (“Ingratitude” Frame)

Key motif:

“We should be grateful — even though there is a contractual obligation.”

📌 Technique: Turning a legal/technical issue into a moral insult.
🎯 Goal: Trigger indignation.
💥 Effect: The technical and legal details of energy policy fade into the background.

---

3️⃣ Dramatization of Existential Threat

Key elements:

• “The Middle East has exploded.”
• “Gas prices have skyrocketed.”
• “Livelihoods are seriously threatened.”

📌 Technique: Linking global conflict with domestic utility costs.
🎯 Goal: Frame the election as a matter of survival.
💥 Effect: Political decisions are driven by fear rather than economic rationality.

---

4️⃣ False Dilemma

Structure:

• One side = expensive energy, war, blackmail
• The other side = cheap energy, security

📌 Technique: Reducing complex reality to two simplified options.
🎯 Goal: Eliminate nuanced foreign policy alternatives.
💥 Effect: The complex debate about energy diversification disappears.

---

5️⃣ The Veto as a Show of Strength

“We will veto everything that helps Ukraine.”

📌 Technique: Emphasizing strong, combative leadership.
🎯 Goal: Reinforce the image of decisiveness.
💥 Effect: Legitimizes confrontational politics.

---

6️⃣ Economic Claims Without Evidence

Statements such as:

• “It costs twice as much.”
• “It’s one-third more expensive.”
• “It won’t even arrive.”

📌 Technique: Using specific-sounding numbers without cited sources.
🎯 Goal: Create the appearance of expertise.
💥 Effect: The audience may accept the claims as established facts.

---

Overall Picture

The text:

• Relies on emotional mobilization,
• Constructs an external threat,
• Frames the election as an existential choice,
• Shifts the energy market debate onto moral terrain.

It is not an energy policy analysis, but a mobilizing campaign message.

---

What on earth is this man talking about?!

Zelenskyy has been obstructing Hungary’s energy supply with an oil blockade for weeks, and now he even expects us to say thank you.

It is equally outrageous that the Commission represents Ukrainian interests instead of the interests of the Member States. Not a single word of support for us over the past month; they have not condemned Zelenskyy’s political pressure tactics.

In reality, there is nothing new under the sun. Brussels is happily assisting the alliance between TISZA and Ukraine. Together, they have repeatedly made it clear that they would cut our country off from cheap Russian energy in order to make Hungary dependent on Shell and the other oil multinationals.

We Hungarians want no part of this. As long as there is a national government, affordable utility prices will remain, and we will resist blackmail. That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

“Let’s thank Zelenskyy nicely, be grateful!” Give me a break! Are we really supposed to thank them for something they are contractually obliged to do, which they are now refusing to reopen? What are we even talking about? This has to stop!

I also find it deeply outrageous what the Union is doing in this situation — that von der Leyen and her circle are not defending the Member States, not standing up for Slovakia and Hungary, not taking our side, but instead siding with the Ukrainians.

At least it is now much clearer to everyone what is happening ahead of the April elections. The Brussels–Kyiv–TISZA axis has lined up against us.

1️⃣ Organizing an External Enemy Bloc

Actors placed on the same axis:

• Zelensky
• Brussels
• “TISZA”

📌 Technique: Coordinated conspiracy narrative.
🎯 Goal: Elevate a domestic political dispute into a national security threat.
💥 Effect: Voters stop thinking about energy contracts and instead experience a sense that “we are under attack.”

---

2️⃣ Contract vs. “Gratitude” – Moral Outrage Framing

Core argument:

“We should not be grateful for something they are contractually obliged to provide.”

📌 Technique: Turning a legal issue into a moral offense.
🎯 Goal: Provoke indignation.
💥 Effect: The technical and professional aspects of the issue fade into the background.

---

3️⃣ Existential Threat Framing

Key messages:

• “They would cut our country off from cheap energy.”
• “Blackmail.”
• “An axis against us.”

📌 Technique: Survival-based framing.
🎯 Goal: Transform the election into a referendum on energy security and household utility protection.
💥 Effect: Emotion-driven decision-making.

---

4️⃣ False Dilemma

Structure:

• Fidesz = cheap utilities, protection
• Opposition + Brussels + Ukraine = expensive energy, vulnerability

📌 Technique: Black-and-white simplification.
🎯 Goal: Eliminate middle-ground alternatives (e.g., diversification, alternative routes, market-based pricing).

---

📌 What Is the Core Question, Actually?

Beneath the emotional layer, there are three concrete professional questions:

1. Is there an actual transit restriction, and on what legal basis?
2. What alternative routes are available (e.g., the Adriatic pipeline)?
3. Is this primarily political pressure, or a contractual dispute?

These questions are answered by documents, contracts, and concrete quantitative data — not by campaign slogans.

Whoever says that the danger of war is just scaremongering — what would they say to this mother from Transcarpathia?

Kitti and her family have already lost many people because of the war. József Sebestyén also lived near them; he was violently dragged into a car by Ukrainian recruitment officers and later beaten to death in a training camp. The amount of grief and pain this mother is experiencing because of the war is indescribable — and how many others are mourning besides her!

With the April election, we are choosing our fate: will we also experience tragedies like these, or will we stay out of the war?

According to Tisza, there is no war, and their European People’s Party bosses want to send Hungarian soldiers to the front. Deep down, we all know: peace is the only path on which our future can be safe.

How did you receive the news as a family — did you find out from the news, or did someone from the family tell you?

Well, he is not the first person we have lost. My godfather died at 40 — he was 47–48 — the fiancé of my daughter’s godmother. They took him too? Yes, they took him, and they brought him home in such a condition that he was in pieces. And now my brother-in-law has died as well — his uncle, Tibi’s childhood friend, Tibi’s neighbor. So many people whom we knew directly have been lost. Many — and others we saw several videos about. The one whom the Ukrainian soldiers beat so badly that he died; both his hands were broken in the camp there. He lived not far from Tibi’s family. So it has taken quite a lot from us.

1️⃣ Personal Tragedy as a Political Tool

The story of a mother from Transcarpathia may, in itself, represent genuine human suffering.
But the text is not really about mourning — it is about this:

“With the April election, we are choosing our fate.”

📌 Technique:
It transforms a specific, shocking personal story into a generalized political message.

🎯 Goal:
To place the voter in an emotional state (fear, empathy) and, in that state, connect the tragedy directly to the act of voting.

💥 Effect:
The rational question (“What is Hungary’s actual room for maneuver?”) is pushed into the background.

---

2️⃣ Existential Threat Framing

“We will either experience such tragedies ourselves, or stay out of the war.”

This is a classic false dilemma.

As if:

• one party = war
• the other party = peace

📌 Technique: Binary oversimplification
🎯 Goal: To turn the election into a survival issue
💥 Effect: Debate about concrete policies disappears

---

3️⃣ Construction of an Enemy Image

“According to Tisza, there is no war.”
“Their People’s Party bosses want to send Hungarian soldiers to the front.”

This is no longer emotional storytelling, but political framing.

📌 Techniques:

• Suggesting external control (“their bosses”)
• Labeling the opponent as pro-war

🎯 Goal:
To portray the domestic political opponent as a security risk.

---

4️⃣ Repetition and Graphic Detailing

The second half of the story lists deaths, names, ages, and phrases like “brought home in pieces.”

This is verbalized visual brutality.

📌 Technique: Graphic verbal imagery
🎯 Goal: Emotional shock
💥 Effect: The audience sees grief instead of geopolitics.

---

The Core Issue

Real human tragedies do exist.
There is a war in Ukraine.
There are mobilizations in Transcarpathia as well.

But the political claim being made is this:

“If you don’t vote for us, this will happen to you too.”

That is the point where the campaign shifts into fear-based mobilization.