According to Katalin Cseh, the rules should be rewritten so that Brussels can make decisions on Ukraine’s EU membership and other war-related issues while bypassing Hungary. Yes, they really want to change those framework rules that govern, for example, how decisions are made. And this is exactly why the country’s leadership must not be entrusted to Brussels’ people — which is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
1️⃣ Sovereignty-threat narrative
The phrase “bypassing Hungary” suggests that external forces would strip the country of its right to decide.
It triggers a strong emotional response (defensiveness, outrage).
Viktor Orbán has announced that we are launching a petition against Ukraine’s new $800 billion demand. Brussels must not send Hungarians’ money to Ukraine! ❌
Together with patriotic women, we have launched a DPK petition so that we women can also make our voices heard amid the madness of war: https://dpkor.hu/nok-a-haboru-ellen/
In December, I visited Transcarpathia, in Mezőkaszony—just two hundred meters from the Hungarian border.
I met Hungarian women there: wives, mothers, and grandmothers. Women whose husbands did not come home, and women whose sons will never knock on the door again.
They still get up every morning, go to work, and carry on—but now they do so alone. Because war does not only kill on the front lines; it also destroys homes. Hungarian homes, just a stone’s throw away from us. And yet, far too little is said about this.
This week also marked the memorial day of the Don catastrophe. At times like this, it is worth stopping for a moment and remembering that Hungary knows exactly what the price of war means.
Not from theory or calculations, but from monuments, graves, and family tragedies. At the Don Bend, an entire generation was lost, and behind them remained Hungarian women who had to carry on with life alone—and with it, the history of Hungary.
That is why it is so important that we also send a message, so that everyone knows: women want peace.
We have just launched an online petition specifically addressed to girls, women, and mothers, encouraging them—independently of party politics—to stand up for peace and to raise their voices against war.
I would also very much like to encourage those women who, under the internal rules of Magyar Péter’s circle, have been forbidden from supporting Fidesz’s anti-war initiatives, to speak up freely as well, not to give in to this blackmail or coercion. And if they feel that it matters to them to raise their children in peace, that they do not want their brothers, fathers, or sons to be sent to war, and that they do not want to pay the price of this war either, then they should feel free to sign this petition as well.
🎭 Central Narrative
“Peace = a female moral truth” The text suggests that any woman who does not support the petition is acting against women’s historical experience and moral duty.
1️⃣ Emotional legitimization through personal experience
“In December, I was in Transcarpathia…”
🔹 Technique: testimony + proximity 🔹 Effect:
forces emotional identification
elevates the speaker above the debate as an “eyewitness”
👉 Trick: individual experience → general political conclusion
2️⃣ Historical parallel as moral blackmail
Don Bend, widows, lost generations
🔹 Technique: invocation of collective trauma 🔹 Effect:
anyone who disagrees is framed as “disrespecting the victims”
appropriation of historical memory
👉 Manipulation: World War II ≠ today’s geopolitical situation yet they are emotionally merged
3️⃣ “Women speak on behalf of women” – false representation
“So that we women can also make our voices heard”
🔹 Technique: identity appropriation 🔹 Problem:
no mandate
no pluralism (“women” ≠ a unified political bloc)
👉 Message: a woman who thinks differently is “not a real woman”
4️⃣ Victim narrative + external enemy framing
“They forbade it, blackmail, coercion”
🔹 Technique: persecution narrative 🔹 Goal:
construction of moral superiority
demonization of an internal political opponent (Magyar Péter and his circle)
👉 Evidence: none — only assertion
5️⃣ False dilemma (black-and-white framing)
“Either you want peace, or you want war”
🔹 Technique: binary thinking 🔹 Reality:
no discussion of diplomacy, security policy, or international law
all nuance disappears
👉 Consequence: exclusion of meaningful debate
6️⃣ Petition as a moral test
“They should feel free to sign”
🔹 Technique: moral pressure 🔹 Hidden message:
you sign → good mother, good woman
you don’t sign → indifferent / pro-war
⚠️ Overall picture
This text is not about peace in a policy sense, but about:
Hajós András has admitted that he was wrong when he downplayed the consequences of migration. The former key member of Heti Hetes acknowledged in a podcast that the national government made the right decision when it said no to illegal migration ten years ago. Today, he also recognizes that Orbán Viktor was right: the consistently upheld migration policy protected our country from the crisis experienced in the West.
Hungary continues to need a prime minister who raises his voice and acts when there is trouble—not when it is already too late, but when resistance is still possible. Even if other European politicians want something different.
In times of danger, we must think several steps ahead and make responsible decisions. This is not the time for experimentation. Fidesz and Viktor Orbán are the safe choice.
Now imagine this: a well-known actor visited the former Heti Hetes legend, András Hajós, and together they talked about how badly they had misjudged migration back then. Looking back now, he said it was a “***** huge mistake” to even argue about it.
He explained that even within his own circles, he has to be very cautious when speaking about this issue—an issue about which he himself had once written an article in a magazine, accusing Viktor Orbán of exaggeration and mocking him for imagining himself as the hero of Nándorfehérvár, claiming to be the defender of Christianity.
But over the years, his opinion inevitably changed, because he saw what actually happened. He admitted that in certain circles he still cannot openly say that when Viktor Orbán claims he was right on this issue, then yes—he was right.
He said he watched the video and believes it is a very good thing that there are people who are capable of saying this out loud. Because in life, it happens that someone does not recognize a problem at the time, or thinks things are different—only for reality to later prove that the person who raised his voice and warned early was right.
Hungary, he said, must not end up in the same dead end that Western Europe entered during the migration crisis.
In his view, this situation is very similar to the present one. Once again, Hungary has a leader—in Viktor Orbán’s case—who is capable of thinking several steps ahead and understanding the consequences of decisions before they unfold.
🎭 Narrative: “Even the critics have admitted that Orbán was right”
The core claim of the text is that Hajós András—a well-known former face of Heti Hetes—has retrospectively admitted that he was wrong about migration, and that Orbán Viktor ultimately proved to be right.
This is a classic legitimation trick: if a well-known figure perceived as being from “the other side” supposedly “converts,” the message presents it as irrefutable proof.
1️⃣ “He regretted it, he realized it, he admitted it” – the conversion narrative
🔹 Technique: a story of moral purification 🔹 Effect:
arguments do not win—repentance does
the debate is declared closed: “anyone who still criticizes is behind the times”
👉 Propaganda function: It does not prove that Orbán was right; it suggests that the issue is no longer even worth debating.
2️⃣ “Western Europe went into a dead end” – fear by contrast
🔹 Technique: deterrent example (West = chaos) 🔹 Trick:
no data
no country-by-country distinction
no cause-and-effect analysis
👉 Message: if not Orbán’s path → Western collapse.
3️⃣ “Someone who thinks ahead” – the leader myth
🔹 Technique: constructing a prophetic leader 🔹 Key phrase: “capable of thinking several steps ahead”
👉 Reality: retrospective justification = ex post rationalization. Past decisions are not analyzed through their consequences—only morally glorified.
4️⃣ “This is not the time for experimentation” – status-quo blackmail
🔹 Technique: false dilemma
either Orbán
or chaos
👉 Propaganda function: every alternative is framed as irresponsible risk.
5️⃣ The role of Hajós András – the showcase critic
A crucial trick: Hajós appears not as a political expert, but as an “honest civilian.”
👉 This is how it works:
“not a Fidesz supporter”
“not a politician”
“yet he admitted it”
This is emotional authentication, not professional credibility.
⚠️ Conclusion – what is really happening?
This text is not about migration. It is about:
🔒 Closing the debate 🔒 Making the leader unquestionable 🔒 Delegitimizing criticism of the present
And the final sentence says it all:
“Fidesz and Viktor Orbán are the safe choice.” → not a conclusion, but a campaign slogan.
Brussels has given three times (!) as much money to Ukraine in just three years as Hungarians have received over the entire period of our EU membership since 2004.
The war and misguided Brussels policies have already cost millions to every Hungarian family, but Ukraine’s new, purely economic $800 billion (!) demand would mean an additional 1.3 million forints per Hungarian family.
This is money that people would literally have to take out of a drawer at home and hand over to Zelensky. Absolutely not.
At the same time, Brussels doesn’t even have this money, which is why they are demanding war-related tax hikes and cuts to social support. They would take away the 13th and 14th month pensions, home-creation subsidies, CSOK, utility price caps, the flat income tax, worker loans, as well as tax benefits for mothers, young people, and families. I could go on at length.
Only a strong national government can resist this — a government that has been doing exactly that for 15 years. That is why Viktor Orbán and Fidesz are the safe choice.
If Brussels’ newly appointed puppets were to come to power, they would not be able to resist — and would not dare to. Anyone can see that.
What do you think about the report by the Ministry for European Union Affairs on how much Brussels’ war policy is costing us? I’ve seen that report as well. In my view, it contains brutal figures, but it only confirms what we have already seen: this war is essentially being paid for by the Hungarian people and by Europeans.
The report states very clearly that the money the European Union has spent on Ukraine over just the past few years is three times the amount Hungary has received during its entire EU membership since 2004. In other words, everything we have received from Brussels since joining the EU combined amounts to only one third of what has recently been spent on Ukraine.
And then there is the 800 billion euros that Ukraine’s prime minister has spoken about — money that, independently of military and war-related expenditures, would still be required from us in the coming years.
It is worth translating this into concrete terms: Hungary’s share alone would mean around 1.3 million forints per family. Just imagine if every Hungarian family had to put 1.3 million forints on the table at home, and there would be no question about where that money would be taken from — because it would be missing from somewhere.
It would be missing from the 13th and 14th month pensions, from support for businesses, from tax benefits for families, and from tax exemptions.
As long as Hungary has a national government, we will not allow this. But if some Brussels-installed puppet government were to come to power, then, obviously, anything could happen. That’s exactly the point.
1️⃣ “Brussels gave three times as much to Ukraine as to Hungary since 2004”
Technique: false comparison (apples vs. oranges)
What’s the trick?
Hungary has been a net beneficiary within the EU (cohesion funds, agricultural subsidies, recovery funds).
Money given to Ukraine is crisis and war assistance, not structural funding tied to EU membership.
The timeframe, purpose, and legal category are completely different.
👉 This is like saying:
“More money was spent on firefighting than on home renovation — therefore firefighters are stealing.”
2️⃣ “800 billion dollars → 1.3 million forints per family”
Technique: fictional allocation + shock numbers
What’s the problem?
There is no approved, mandatory EU contribution of this kind.
There is no mechanism by which such an amount would be collected “per family.”
The EU budget simply does not work this way.
👉 This is psychological blackmail, not calculation:
“Imagine this being taken from you” — even though no such decision exists.
3️⃣ “This money would be given to Zelensky”
Technique: personalized scapegoating
This is where Volodymyr Zelensky appears as a constructed enemy figure.
Purpose:
To attach abstract EU decisions to a single face
To provoke moral outrage (“Would you give him your money?”)
👉 A classic case of externalized enemy construction.
4️⃣ “They would take away the 13th–14th month pensions, CSOK, utility price caps”
Technique: fear-based listing
Important facts:
There is no EU decision to abolish a 13th or “14th” month pension.
A “14th month pension” does not even exist as a legal institution.
CSOK and utility price caps are domestic budgetary policy decisions.
👉 This is conditional future scaremongering:
“If it’s not us, everything will be bad.”
5️⃣ “Only a strong national government can resist”
Technique: savior narrative
This is where the argument arrives at the political legitimization of Orbán Viktor and Fidesz.
Message, simplified:
We = protection
Others = betrayal / weakness / puppets
👉 This is authoritarian logic, not an economic argument.
6️⃣ The problem with the “report”
“I’ve seen the report as well”
Key questions that are not answered:
Is it public?
Does it contain a full budgetary breakdown?
Are the figures gross or net?
Are these legally binding items or political estimates?
👉 A government ministry document is not an independent source.
The overall picture – what is really happening?
This is not information, but:
fear-mongering
false calculations
enemy-image construction
domestic political mobilization
The real question is not whether the EU is making mistakes regarding Ukraine — but why it is necessary to project a “1.3 million forints per family” horror story to make that case.
In short:
👉 This is campaign rhetoric, not economic analysis. 👉 It uses numbers, but does not actually calculate. 👉 It merges Brussels, Ukraine, and the domestic opposition into a single enemy bloc.
The week starts with a record — in tourism, no less. The latest tourism figures for 2025 are out, and for the first time in Hungary’s history, the number of guests has exceeded 20 million. That’s an impressive figure. For context: tourism growth in Hungary was two and a half times the EU average. Compared to Austria, our growth rate was double; compared to Croatia, five times higher; and it even surpassed the Czech figures.
This is very good news for the Hungarian economy and for the hundreds of thousands of people who work in tourism and make their living from this sector. It also clearly shows how important it is that in 2026 the government will continue to develop Hungary’s airports, because these investments all contribute to ensuring that Hungarian tourism keeps breaking records.
And there’s another key factor here: Hungary — and especially Budapest, where most tourists arrive — is a very safe country. I believe that when people choose destinations for their trips abroad, safety plays a major role. Budapest is known as a place you can travel to safely: no terrorist attacks, no car burnings — just a city where you can relax and enjoy yourself in security.
So, full speed ahead for Hungarian tourism!
1️⃣ Record numbers = automatic success
Technique: triumph narrative built on big numbers (“20 million visitors”).
Trick: no breakdown (domestic vs. foreign, overnight stays, actual spending).
They are now giving precise instructions to Tisza activists about what they are allowed to do and what is forbidden — like in kindergarten.
We know this because yet another internal Tisza document has been made public. According to this guide, activists are instructed to say: “We do not sign the Fidesz petition because you lie even when you ask questions.”
In the Tisza party, taking a stand against the war is forbidden — just like their candidates are forbidden from debating or speaking to the press. And if someone still does so, they end up like the Budapest-based Tisza activist who signed Fidesz’s anti-war petition and was promptly discarded by Magyar Péter and his circle.
The one-man show continues, only now with even stronger centralization than before. But what else should we expect from someone who called his own people brain-dead? From someone who even betrayed his own wife?
Hungary needs a leader who does not put his own interests first, but the country’s. Someone who respects Hungarians, and who has repeatedly proven through his actions that he will protect Hungary from war, migration, and threats from Brussels.
That is why it is important to vote for Viktor Orbán and Fidesz on April 12. This is the safe choice.
1️⃣ Infantilization and Discrediting
“like in kindergarten”
Technique: degrading metaphor Goal:
portray the opponent’s supporters as immature and easily controlled
position moral and intellectual superiority
👉 A classic delegitimizing frame: they are not debate partners, but children.
2️⃣ “Internal document” – the illusion of secret knowledge
“once again, an internal Tisza document has been made public”
The Tisza politicians do not dare to say no to Brussels. A representative’s opinion is expressed through their vote—and the Tisza politicians have voted accordingly.
For example, they voted for the illegal-migration-supporting Migration Pact to enter into force as quickly as possible. Péter Magyar’s name also appeared as a proposer in initiatives aligned with the pro-Ukraine and pro-war camp.
They stood behind a war-oriented policy, Ukraine’s EU membership, illegal migration, and increased funding for liberal activist groups. They also voted for the Clean Industry Agreement, which demands that Hungary stop energy deliveries from Russia.
They supported the idea that Ukraine and Ukrainian military companies should purchase and develop defense equipment using EU funds. They voted in favor of a proposal aimed at abolishing EU-level utility price protections.
On two occasions, they also stood by Ursula von der Leyen in connection with motions of no confidence initiated against her.
Do not let yourselves be deceived. The Tisza Party is too Brussels-driven and too dangerous. Fidesz is the safe choice.
1️⃣ “A representative’s opinion = their vote” – reductive identification
🔹 Technique: false equivalence Political decision-making is complex: party discipline, amendments, compromises, and package voting all play a role.
👉 This statement erases institutional complexity and turns every single vote into a moral judgment.
Goal: “If they voted for it, they must agree with it – no nuance.”
2️⃣ “They don’t dare say no to Brussels” – framing of subordination
🔹 Technique: cowardice framing + external control narrative The phrase “don’t dare” is an emotional label, not a factual claim.
👉 The Tisza Party is portrayed not as a political opponent, but as an executor of Brussels’ will.
Classic propaganda pattern:
Us = sovereign
Them = controlled
3️⃣ Migration, war, Ukraine – thematic bundling
🔹 Technique: scapegoating + bundled threat
Placed into a single narrative block:
illegal migration
Ukraine’s EU membership
pro-war policy
liberal activist groups
halting energy supplies
👉 Issues of very different nature and weight are fused into one “threat package.”
Effect: The audience can no longer distinguish between them – only the sense of danger remains.
4️⃣ Personal linkage of Péter Magyar to every decision
🔹 Technique: expansion of personal responsibility
Péter Magyar’s name appears as a “proposer,” then becomes associated with:
pro-war stance
Ukrainian rearmament
migration
abolition of utility price protection
👉 Collective decisions are transformed into personal guilt.
5️⃣ Energy and utility prices – existential fear-mongering
🔹 Technique: cost-of-living panic
“They would stop Russian energy supplies.” “They voted to abolish EU-level utility price protection.”
👉 Instead of examining legal or economic realities, the message suggests:
“If they come to power, your life will become more expensive.”
6️⃣ Defense of Ursula von der Leyen – elite-conspiracy framing
🔹 Technique: protecting the external elite as betrayal
Two no-confidence votes involving Ursula von der Leyen are highlighted.
👉 The Tisza Party is framed not as an independent actor, but as “Brussels’ protective shield.”
7️⃣ Closing: binary choice
🔹 Technique: false dilemma
“The Tisza Party is too Brussels-driven and too dangerous. Fidesz is the safe choice.”
There is:
no third option
no partial agreement
no policy debate
👉 Only safety vs. danger.
🧠 Summary
This statement does not inform – it:
activates fear
merges unrelated issues
personalizes collective decisions
turns technical votes into moral judgments
🎯 Core message: “If you’re not with us, you’re with Brussels – and that is dangerous.”
