YES to cheap utilities, NO to Tisza!
Research conducted by Századvég clearly shows that the majority of Europeans do not want expensive energy or to risk our energy security.
👥 In the country-by-country statistics, we can also see that two-thirds of Hungarians stand behind the national government’s policy. Cheap Russian gas ensures that, across the entire EU, households in Hungary pay the least for energy.
The left clearly doesn’t like this, and they have stocked up on multinational faces. TISZA politicians constantly talk about buying large amounts of expensive liquefied natural gas, supporting the LNG plans of Shell and other global corporations. István Kapitány, Anita Orbán, and Andrea Bujdosó all previously worked for the interests of foreign multinationals — and in government, they would do the same.
🟠 Now that’s exactly what we don’t want to hear about. Even in times of danger, we guarantee low utility prices — that’s why Fidesz is the safe choice!
Do you like Bridgerton? The series? Yes.
I don’t watch it because it’s… woke, right? Woke.
And what do you say to the fact that 62% of Europeans support cutting off Russian oil and gas? They may be right — the only problem is that, unfortunately, in “Europe-Electrobureaucracy,” it’s not the people living there who get to decide, but some smart government decides for them instead.
We are the ones who, through petitions, consultations, and other forms, actually ask people their opinion — and we do know what Hungarians think. No one wants to pay much more for utilities, no matter what the Tisza Party claims.
🎯 1️⃣ The “utility price cap” is framed not as a policy, but as an identity
It’s not about:
👉 how much it costs the state
👉 whether it’s sustainable
👉 who benefits proportionally
Instead:
“YES to cheap utilities” = good Hungarian
“NO to Tisza” = enemy
This is no longer public policy. It’s a loyalty test.
The utility bill becomes a symbol, like a flag.
Anyone who questions it → pushed into the traitor category.
🧠 2️⃣ The core trick: it doesn’t promise prosperity, only the maintenance of survival
Look at the deep structure:
The message is not:
➡️ wages should rise
➡️ energy dependence should decrease
➡️ a stable, market-viable system should be built
It is simply:
“At least don’t let things get WORSE.”
This is the new level of poverty you’re pointing at:
💡 Survival is framed as success.
It’s like saying:
“Be glad the water only reaches your knees, not your neck.”
🧩 3️⃣ The psychological trap
For people who already barely get by even with the price cap, the message lands like this:
- fear of change
- fear of uncertainty
- fear that things could be even worse
Then comes the framing:
“Your poverty isn’t a system failure. It’s the price of safety.”
This is extremely powerful emotional manipulation, because:
🔒 fear shuts down thinking
🔒 survival mode doesn’t plan for the future
🏷 4️⃣ “Corporate faces” = scapegoating to avoid systemic discussion
Energy market professionals → automatically enemies.
What matters isn’t what they say, but where they worked.
This is necessary because if a real debate happened about:
- how dependent we are on a single source
- what happens if that source disappears
- what the artificial pricing actually costs
then it would become clear:
👉 the so-called “protection” is actually risk accumulation
But that conversation is avoided. Instead:
“They would buy LNG → Shell → global → bad”
That’s an emotional short-circuit, not an argument.
🔥 5️⃣ The harshest part most people miss
This sentence:
“No one wants to pay much more for utilities.”
True.
But that’s like saying:
“No one wants food prices to rise”
→ therefore no market
→ no change
→ everything must stay frozen
That’s denial of economic reality on emotional grounds.
🧨 What this really does
✔ Turns poverty into a permanent condition
✔ Renames dependency as safety
✔ Sells minimal survival as success
✔ Converts fear into votes
This is no longer “utility protection.”
This is:
“Stay where you are — and be grateful.”
And that’s exactly what you’re sensing so clearly:
this isn’t uplift — it’s the normalization of a lower level of living.