❗Let’s play a game!
I was just here at the Ministry of Energy, and I thought—let’s stop randomly on the street and take a look around: what has the government done here over the past 16 years?!

For example, there’s the Tüskecsarnok, which the Orbán government completed for 6 billion forints.
We are increasing the budget of BME by tens of billions.
The Southern Railway Ring (Déli Körvasút) is being built for 360 billion forints—this is the biggest development in the capital since Metro Line 4.
And speaking of Metro Line 4, that too was completed here in Újbuda by this government.
A bit further away, you’ll find the Corvinus Gellért Campus, and the Citadel, which is about to be completed soon.
And I haven’t even mentioned the city developments under our leadership, such as the extension of Tram Line 1 or the renewed Bikás Park.

❗In summary: here in Újbuda as well, Fidesz is the reliable choice—no matter how you look at it!

---

I’m standing here in front of the Ministry of Energy. I just had a meeting with Gábor Czepek, where we talked a bit about how he sees the situation after returning from Kyiv with the fact-finding delegation—what this oil blockade could mean for the people of Budapest if it were to continue.

But since I was already here, I thought we should take a look around and talk about what has happened here during the 16 years of national governance.

If I looked ahead, behind these buildings I could see the Tüskecsarnok, which was completed by the Orbán government for 6 billion forints. Somewhere around here runs the Southern Railway Ring, currently under construction for 360 billion forints—this represents a scale of development not seen in the capital since Metro Line 4.

And speaking of Metro Line 4, that too was completed during the Orbán governments, with their support.

If I turned in the other direction—something I might even be able to show you in this small frame—if this large ministry building weren’t here, we could also see the Corvinus campus, which the government is developing, including its dormitory. And if we could see through this building with X-ray vision, we’d spot the Citadel as well, whose opening is expected in the coming days.

And I haven’t even mentioned things like the extension of Tram Line 1 or the renewal of Bikás Park.

So overall, the past 16 years of national governance have brought a great deal to Újbuda and to Budapest as well.

🔍 Rhetorical / Propaganda Analysis

1️⃣ “Let’s play a game” – soft entry (soft entry framing)

Excerpt:
“❗Let’s play a game!”

Technique:
➡️ Childlike / playful opening
➡️ Reduces tension
➡️ Does not start as political content

Goal:
➡️ Lower defenses (“this is just a game”)
➡️ Easier engagement

Effect:
➡️ The audience listens as a participant, not critically

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Manipulation already starts here, just in a hidden way

---

2️⃣ “Let’s look around” – illusion of visual proof

Excerpt:
“let’s look around and see what the government has done here over 16 years”

Technique:
➡️ On-location presence (street proof)
➡️ “What you see = evidence” logic
➡️ Selective examples

Goal:
➡️ Increase credibility (“I’m here → it’s true”)
➡️ Replace abstraction with visible reality

Effect:
➡️ “I see it → therefore it’s true”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Not a complete list
➡️ Unclear:

• who started it
• who funded it
• EU role

---

3️⃣ “List of developments” – enumeration persuasion

Examples:

• Tüskecsarnok
• BME expansion
• Southern Railway (Déli Körvasút)
• Metro Line 4
• Corvinus campus
• Citadel
• Tram line 1 extension
• Bikás Park

Technique:
➡️ Many examples in quick succession
➡️ Quantity effect (“so much has happened”)
➡️ Numbers without context

Goal:
➡️ Overload critical thinking
➡️ “this much → must be good”

Effect:
➡️ Implicit conclusion: “they work → vote for them”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Missing:

• cost-benefit analysis
• alternatives
• timeline breakdown
  ➡️ Several projects are not attributable to a single government

---

4️⃣ “The Orbán government finished it” – credit appropriation

Excerpt:
“this was also completed by this government”

Technique:
➡️ Completion = ownership
➡️ Ignoring prior phases
➡️ Simplifying complex projects

Goal:
➡️ Attach all positives to one actor
➡️ Increase political capital

Effect:
➡️ “they did it → without them no development”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Projects:

• span multiple cycles
• often EU-funded
• may involve local governments

---

5️⃣ “16 years of national government” – long-term legitimation

Excerpt:
“16 years of national governance has given a lot”

Technique:
➡️ Emphasizing time span
➡️ Stability = results
➡️ Emotional weight of “national”

Goal:
➡️ Government = development narrative
➡️ Weaken alternatives

Effect:
➡️ “if it works → don’t change it”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No comparison with:

• other cities
• other periods
• missing developments

---

6️⃣ “Personal presence + ministry” – authority building

Excerpt:
“I’m here in front of the Ministry of Energy… I discussed…”

Technique:
➡️ Proximity to power
➡️ “Insider” positioning
➡️ Policy context (oil blockade)

Goal:
➡️ Increase credibility
➡️ “she knows what’s going on”

Effect:
➡️ Less likely to be questioned

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Not clear:

• what was actually said
• whether alternative views exist

---

7️⃣ “Local → voting decision” – hidden logical leap

Structure:
listing developments →
➡️ “here too, Fidesz is the safe choice”

Technique:
➡️ False causality (false cause)
➡️ From local examples to national decision
➡️ Emotional closure

Goal:
➡️ Influence voting behavior
➡️ Provide a simple conclusion

Effect:
➡️ “development = I vote for them”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Developments do not automatically mean:

• better governance
• better future
• no alternatives

---

🧠 Overall picture (very important)

This is not aggressive propaganda, but:

👉 “positive performance propaganda + on-site storytelling”

Core elements:

• playful entry
• visual credibility
• many examples (overload)
• credit appropriation
• political conclusion at the end

---

🎯 The core message in one sentence

👉 “Look how much has been built → therefore you should vote for us.”

(while the full picture is not presented)

Despite the left-wing media lying, journalists can continuously ask questions of Viktor Orbán and other members of the government—just think of the international press conferences, the Government Info briefings, or even yesterday’s Peace March.

The real question is: why aren’t the representatives of the Tisza Party being questioned about the Ukrainian threats against our country, the oil blockade, or their economic plans?
Well, of course we know why—if they told everything, they would fail.

Now the Prime Minister is about to go on a public nationwide tour, and it’s being claimed that he hasn’t done anything like this for 26 years. That’s simply not true. I remember, for example, during previous campaigns—whether in smaller towns or elsewhere—he regularly appeared before crowds. And, with all due respect, you journalists are also present at these events and have the opportunity to ask questions.

Every year, there is an international press conference where many questions can be asked. Gergely Gulyás also holds press briefings weekly or biweekly following government meetings. I am here as well—you can ask questions here too. So it simply cannot be said that we are not available for questioning.

Instead, I would turn the question back to you: why don’t you ask the Tisza Party candidates? From what I see, they are hiding across the country and are unwilling to share their views. And we know why—they themselves say that if they revealed everything, they would fail.

I am really looking forward to these questions, including one I expect the press to ask: why hasn’t Péter Magyar spoken for weeks about the Druzhba oil pipeline? When Hungary is being pressured from abroad, when we receive no answers, when the Hungarian fact-finding delegation is not allowed to investigate why no oil is coming through the Druzhba pipeline—why has Péter Magyar remained silent for weeks?

🔍 Rhetorical / propaganda analysis

1️⃣ “The left-wing media is lying” – preemptive delegitimization

(preemptive delegitimization)

Excerpt:
“Even though the left-wing media is lying…”

Technique:
➡️ Right at the beginning, it defines who is “not trustworthy”
➡️ Does not refute a specific claim → generalizes (“is lying”)
➡️ Binary framing: “us vs. them”

Goal:
➡️ Eliminate the need for verification
➡️ Protect its own narrative from criticism

Effect:
➡️ The audience becomes less likely to trust other sources

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No concrete example → just labeling

---

2️⃣ “You can ask us” – defensive legitimization

(defensive transparency framing)

Excerpt:
“you can continuously ask questions… press conferences…”

Technique:
➡️ Lists institutional examples (Government Info sessions, etc.)
➡️ Emphasizes apparent openness

Goal:
➡️ Reinforce the image of democratic functioning

Effect:
➡️ “If there are press conferences → the system must be transparent”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ The real question is not whether forums exist, but:

• what questions are actually asked
• whether real answers are given
• whether critical media is present

---

3️⃣ DISTRACTION (whataboutism)

(whataboutism / redirection)

Excerpt:
“why aren’t the Tisza representatives being asked…?”

Technique:
➡️ Shifts focus away from the original criticism
➡️ Puts another actor at the center of the debate

Goal:
➡️ Reduce accountability of one’s own side

Effect:
➡️ The discussion changes topic → no real answer is given

⚠️ Key point:
➡️ This is a classic propaganda technique

---

4️⃣ “They are hiding” – weakening the opponent

(delegitimization / coward framing)

Excerpt:
“they are hiding across the country… not willing to speak…”

Technique:
➡️ Claim without evidence
➡️ Moral labeling (“hiding”)

Goal:
➡️ Portray the opponent as incompetent or cowardly

Effect:
➡️ “If they’re hiding → they must be hiding something”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No concrete data or event

---

5️⃣ “If they spoke → they would fail”

(mind reading / narrative injection)

Technique:
➡️ Assigns thoughts to the opponent
➡️ Presents assumptions as facts

Goal:
➡️ Preemptively discredit any future statements

Effect:
➡️ “We already know → whatever they say will be bad”

⚠️ Logical issue:
➡️ No evidence → pure speculation

---

6️⃣ VICTIM POSITION + THREAT

(victimhood + external threat framing)

Excerpt:
“Hungary is being blackmailed from abroad…”

Technique:
➡️ External enemy (Ukraine)
➡️ Own side = victim

Goal:
➡️ Trigger national unity

Effect:
➡️ “There is danger → now is not the time for criticism”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Oversimplifies a complex geopolitical situation

---

7️⃣ STATEMENT DISGUISED AS A QUESTION

(loaded question)

Excerpt:
“Why has Péter Magyar been silent for weeks?”

Technique:
➡️ A claim framed as a question
➡️ Built-in accusation: “he is silent”

Goal:
➡️ Create suspicion without proof

Effect:
➡️ The claim “feels true”

---

🧠 Overall picture (very important)

The text is a classic propaganda mix, where the following appear simultaneously:

🔹 1. Defense

➡️ “you can ask us”

🔹 2. Attack

➡️ “they are hiding”

🔹 3. Victimhood

➡️ “we are being blackmailed”

🔹 4. Distraction

➡️ “but why aren’t they being asked?”

---

⚠️ About the “slightly narcissistic” part (what you mentioned)

What you’re sensing is not a clinical psychological diagnosis, but rather:

👉 a communication pattern:

✔️ self-justification (“we are open”)
✔️ victim positioning (“we are under attack”)
✔️ projection (“they do what we don’t”)
✔️ narrative control

In propaganda terms:

➡️ “projection + victim framing + control”

---

📌 In short

This text:

• does not respond to criticism
• instead reframes the debate

while simultaneously:

• delegitimizing
• playing the victim
• attacking
• redirecting attention

🗣 It’s unbelievable that Hungarians are the ones who have to make excuses, after we haven’t received a single drop of oil from Ukraine for a month and a half — even though the Hungarian oil company has paid for it, even though there are no sanctions on it, and even though there are no technical issues with the Druzhba oil pipeline. ❗

The task of Deputy Minister for Energy Gábor Czepek was to lead a fact-finding delegation in Kyiv to examine the actual technical condition of the Druzhba pipeline.

He said that although an official meeting with the Ukrainians had already been arranged, as soon as Zelensky learned that the Hungarian delegation was there, he made the negotiations impossible.

So Ukraine’s master plan has become clear — which they want to carry out in alliance with Péter Magyar: weakening Hungary’s energy security and utility cost protection, and through that, interfering in Hungarian elections.

We will not allow this! As long as there is a national government, we will not give in to Ukrainian blackmail and we will protect the energy security of Hungarian families!

❗The situation is simple: if President Zelensky wants to receive his money from Brussels, then he must reopen the Druzhba oil pipeline!

---

…And this too… I also read on 444 that you were “just doing tourism” there, and that you didn’t manage to gather any evidence during your stay. That sounds a bit ironic, to say the least. We know that in Ukraine, truth is not always their strong suit — so what did you actually experience there, what happened?

Well… it’s a strange feeling when, especially back home in Hungary, we have to justify ourselves because for a month and a half not a single drop of oil has been coming through a pipeline — a pipeline for which the Hungarian oil company has already paid. It’s not under sanctions, neither U.S. nor EU sanctions. And yet we have to explain ourselves for showing up in a country, politely but firmly, following all the rules.

It didn’t start like this. Initially, the deputy prime minister was supposed to meet with us. But as soon as Zelensky found out — this was around Thursday noon — things changed.

So you already had a scheduled official meeting with a Ukrainian partner?

Before we went out, we had already sent two letters to the Ukrainian energy authorities. And when we arrived, preparations were underway for a meeting with Taras Kachka, the deputy prime minister responsible for EU affairs. That would have been a relatively high-level political meeting.

But as soon as Zelensky found out who was in the delegation, we instantly turned into “tourists.” Just like that — we became tourists. From that point on, the Ukrainian energy government and all officials completely disengaged from us.

And it’s quite cynical, whether it’s the article by 444 or Ukrainian propaganda pieces, because I wouldn’t glorify what we did — but we were in a country at war.

We experienced three air raid alerts. One night, between 2 a.m. and 7 a.m., we were actually in a shelter. About 500 aerial attack devices were launched toward Ukraine and Kyiv that night. And there was a weapons factory just 800 meters from us.

So that’s the kind of environment where we were supposedly “doing tourism.” That’s why it matters. I wouldn’t exactly call it a tourist destination based on personal experience.

So for a while, you probably won’t be going back there for tourism, right?

No.

🔍 Propaganda Analysis

1️⃣ “We are the victims” – grievance and injustice narrative

(victimhood framing / injustice framing)

Excerpt:
“even Hungarians have to apologize…”
“for a month and a half we haven’t received a single drop of oil…”

Technique:
➡️ Portrays the own side as a passive victim
➡️ Builds moral outrage (“we have to explain ourselves”)
➡️ Simple emotional frame: “this is unfair to us”

Goal:
➡️ Create identification in the reader (“this is happening to us”)
➡️ Trigger outrage and a sense of injustice

Effect:
➡️ Reduces critical thinking
➡️ Increases emotional engagement

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Does not present the full supply chain (Russia–Ukraine–EU relations)
➡️ The situation is multi-factorial, not a one-sided decision

---

2️⃣ Simplified causality – “they are blocking the oil”

(simplification / single-cause framing)

Excerpt:
“despite no sanctions… despite no technical problem…”

Technique:
➡️ Excludes all alternative explanations
➡️ Assigns a single actor as responsible (Ukraine)
➡️ “if there’s no obstacle → it must be intentional”

Goal:
➡️ Create a clear scapegoat
➡️ Simplify a complex situation

Effect:
➡️ Easy to understand, but distorted picture
➡️ Strengthens the “they are to blame” narrative

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Energy policy involves multiple actors (EU, Russia, infrastructure, contracts)
➡️ Missing: transit conditions, political pressure, security risks

---

3️⃣ Enemy construction – linking Ukraine with domestic opposition

(enemy fusion / external + internal threat)

Excerpt:
“Ukraine’s master plan… in alliance with Péter Magyar…”

Technique:
➡️ Merges external and internal enemies
➡️ Builds a conspiracy-like narrative
➡️ Frames the political opponent as serving foreign interests

Goal:
➡️ Delegitimize domestic opposition
➡️ Create a national vs. “foreign interest” frame

Effect:
➡️ Increases polarization
➡️ Opponent appears as a “traitor”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No evidence for the alleged “alliance”
➡️ Assumption presented as fact

---

4️⃣ “Energy security = national sovereignty”

(security framing / existential framing)

Excerpt:
“Hungarian energy security… weakening utility protection”

Technique:
➡️ Elevates an economic issue to national security level
➡️ Frames it as an existential threat
➡️ Uses “protecting families” as an emotional anchor

Goal:
➡️ Maximize perceived importance of the issue
➡️ Present political stance as “defense”

Effect:
➡️ “This is existential → no compromise”
➡️ Strong support for a hardline position

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Energy security is complex (diversification, reserves, etc.)
➡️ Not dependent on a single pipeline

---

5️⃣ “Blackmail” narrative

(coercion framing / blackmail narrative)

Excerpt:
“Ukrainian blackmail”
“if he wants the money → he must open the pipeline”

Technique:
➡️ Frames the other side’s actions as coercion
➡️ Conditional logic (“if → then”)
➡️ Establishes moral superiority

Goal:
➡️ Delegitimize the other side
➡️ Justify own position

Effect:
➡️ “they are blackmailing → we are defending”
➡️ Simple conflict framing

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ The money–oil relationship is not clearly explained
➡️ EU funding and energy policy are more complex

---

6️⃣ Hero narrative – “we were in a war zone”

(heroization / credibility through risk)

Excerpt:
“we were in a war-torn country”
“air raid… shelter…”

Technique:
➡️ Builds credibility through personal risk
➡️ Emphasizes physical danger
➡️ “not tourists → heroes”

Goal:
➡️ Deflect criticism (e.g. “tourism”)
➡️ Reinforce own narrative

Effect:
➡️ “they were really there → they are credible”
➡️ Triggers empathy and respect

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Presence ≠ truth of claims
➡️ Does not prove political statements

---

7️⃣ Media delegitimization

(media delegitimization)

Excerpt:
“the 444 article is cynical”
“Ukrainian propaganda”

Technique:
➡️ Preemptively discredits critical sources
➡️ Weakens alternative narratives

Goal:
➡️ Prevent trust in other sources
➡️ Maintain information control

Effect:
➡️ “only this narrative is true”
➡️ Creates an information bubble

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Does not refute specific claims
➡️ Uses labeling instead of argument

---

🧠 Overall Picture (briefly)

Narrative:
➡️ Hungary = victim
➡️ Ukraine = blackmailer / enemy
➡️ Opposition = serving foreign interests
➡️ Government = protector / hero

Main tools:

• emotional identification (grievance, fear)
• simplification
• enemy construction
• conspiracy-like linking
• dramatization of credibility (war experience)

Here is another Hungarian victim of the war in Ukraine.

For five years now, a senseless war has been raging in our neighboring country, where several of our compatriots from Transcarpathia have already lost their lives. Mothers and fathers mourn their sons, who, after being forcibly conscripted, will never return home.

Károly Kádas was taken from his home village in December. In broad daylight, he was grabbed off the street and transported to a training base. For days, his family received no information about him, and then, before he could be deployed to the front, he died at the center. Although the Ukrainian authorities claim that he took his own life, all signs point to the contrary, as he had previously “mentioned to acquaintances a sergeant who was openly hostile toward him because of his Hungarian origin.” According to the grieving family, Károly may have been killed.

This is one story, but not the only one—just one of many. Every loss of life is a tragedy, and we must recognize this now. We in Hungary do not want to experience anything like this.

If we have a national government, we will stay out of the war and protect the peace of our country. That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

Károly Kádos was forcibly conscripted by the Ukrainian authorities last December, and a few days ago, in March of this year, he died under unclear circumstances. According to the Ukrainian version, he committed suicide by shooting himself, but the explanation is quite strange—in fact, we could even say it is ridiculous and unbelievable. According to the official document, Kádos ended his life with multiple gunshots, and, strangely, the weapon could not even be found. So, according to the Ukrainian account, he shot himself several times and then made the weapon disappear.

Not to mention that, according to people who knew him, on the evening before his death he was making plans for his future, meaning there were no signs that he intended to end his life. According to local sources, the family suspects that their relative may have been killed in the Ukrainian army.

And this is just one story among many brought about by the war of the past four years. Hungarian mothers on the other side of the border are mourning their sons. Every loss of life is a tragedy.

We firmly believe that we must stay out of this war, because we do not want such tragedies to happen to Hungarians in Hungary as well. If Fidesz remains in power, Hungary will certainly stay out of the war—that is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

🔍 Rhetorical / propaganda analysis

1️⃣ “Another Hungarian victim” – immediate emotional shock opening

Excerpt:
“This is yet another Hungarian victim of the war in Ukraine.”

Technique:
➡️ Establishes a strong emotional frame already in the first sentence
➡️ The phrase “Hungarian victim” instantly triggers group identification
➡️ Starts not with analysis, but with a shocking claim

Goal:
➡️ To emotionally engage the reader before they ask critical questions
➡️ To frame the story not as an individual tragedy, but as a national grievance

Effect:
➡️ Creates a feeling of “this is happening to us”
➡️ The reader is more likely to accept later political conclusions

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Details, evidence, and sources are pushed into the background
➡️ A single case quickly becomes a collective political message

---

2️⃣ War = meaningless, Ukraine = violent actor

Excerpt:
“for five years… a meaningless war”
“after forced conscription”

Technique:
➡️ Morally pre-judged language
➡️ The word “meaningless” shuts down debate about causes and responsibility
➡️ Repetition of “forced conscription” builds a harsh, threatening image

Goal:
➡️ To portray the Ukrainian state as brutal and inhumane
➡️ To turn fear of war into political loyalty

Effect:
➡️ The reader sees not a geopolitical conflict, but vulnerable Hungarian victims
➡️ Strengthens the feeling that “it’s better to stay out of everything”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ The full context of the conflict disappears
➡️ One-sided moral language replaces factual explanation

---

3️⃣ Individual tragedy → generalized national narrative

Excerpt:
“This is one story, but not the only one — it’s already one of many.”

Technique:
➡️ Builds a general pattern from a single emotional case
➡️ Generalizes without data or evidence, using narrative instead
➡️ The word “many” creates a sense of certainty

Goal:
➡️ To present the case as systemic, not exceptional
➡️ To elevate the political claim to a societal level

Effect:
➡️ Creates the impression: “this is not a one-off, but a trend”
➡️ Increases fear and anger

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ The generalization is not factually substantiated
➡️ Uncertainties of the individual case disappear in the collective claim

---

4️⃣ Emotional pressure built on family, parents, grief

Excerpt:
“Mothers and fathers mourn their sons”
“Hungarian mothers mourn… their Hungarian sons”

Technique:
➡️ Emphasizes family roles
➡️ Words like “sons,” “mothers,” “fathers” trigger strong emotional resonance
➡️ Speaks not about soldiers or citizens, but family members

Goal:
➡️ To connect the political message to deep human instincts
➡️ To frame anti-war stance as a family-protection reflex rather than strategy

Effect:
➡️ The reader experiences the story as more personal
➡️ Rational evaluation may be overridden by protective instincts

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ The tragedy itself and the political conclusion drawn from it are separate issues
➡️ Emotional language can obscure this distinction

---

5️⃣ Suspicion presented as near-certainty

Excerpt:
“all signs point to the opposite”
“the grieving family believes he may have been killed”
“the family suspects that… he may have been killed”

Technique:
➡️ Frames uncertain claims as strong implications
➡️ “All signs” is an exaggerated generalization
➡️ Blurs the line between suspicion and certainty

Goal:
➡️ To convince the reader that the official version must be false
➡️ To discredit the Ukrainian side

Effect:
➡️ Creates the feeling: “they must be covering it up”
➡️ The audience is less likely to demand proof

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Suspicion is not the same as proven fact
➡️ The rhetoric pushes the reader closer to certainty than the evidence justifies

---

6️⃣ Mocking the official version

Excerpt:
“ridiculous and unbelievable”
“he shot himself multiple times and then made the weapon disappear”

Technique:
➡️ Uses ridicule and absurdity
➡️ Repeats the official narrative in a caricatured form
➡️ Dismisses rather than examines in detail

Goal:
➡️ To make the opposing version intellectually laughable
➡️ To lead the reader to reject it without examination

Effect:
➡️ The audience may feel a sense of superiority
➡️ Doubt is replaced by contempt

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Mockery is not evidence
➡️ Simplification may distort the original claim

---

7️⃣ Ethnic grievance framing

Excerpt:
“he was hostile towards him because of his Hungarian origin”

Technique:
➡️ Frames the event as ethnically motivated hostility
➡️ A personal conflict becomes perceived as anti-Hungarian bias
➡️ Adds strong identity-political charge

Goal:
➡️ To trigger national outrage
➡️ To embed the story in a “Hungarians are being targeted” narrative

Effect:
➡️ Stronger sense of collective grievance
➡️ The reader interprets it less as an individual case, more as group hostility

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ The text does not clearly separate allegation, testimony, and proven fact
➡️ Ethnic framing is a highly mobilizing element

---

8️⃣ Fear transfer to Hungary

Excerpt:
“We in Hungary do not want to experience anything like this”
“we do not want such tragedies to happen to Hungarians in the mother country”

Technique:
➡️ Transforms an external tragedy into an internal threat
➡️ Not only evokes empathy, but also self-protection
➡️ Uses the frame: “this could happen to us too”

Goal:
➡️ To present a distant event as an immediate domestic political stake
➡️ To turn fear into political mobilization

Effect:
➡️ The reader feels the election is a matter of personal safety
➡️ Decision-making shifts toward emotional reasoning

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No direct causal link is proven between Hungarian domestic politics and such events
➡️ Fear may override proportional judgment

---

9️⃣ False binary choice: Fidesz or war

Excerpt:
“If we have a national government, we will stay out of the war”
“If Fidesz remains, Hungary will definitely stay out of the war”
“that is why Fidesz is the safe choice”

Technique:
➡️ Reduces a complex foreign policy situation to two options
➡️ Associates one side with peace, the other implicitly with war risk
➡️ “Safe choice” works as a security slogan

Goal:
➡️ To position Fidesz as the exclusive protector
➡️ To frame the election as an existential decision

Effect:
➡️ “If you don’t vote for them, you risk peace”
➡️ The opposition is implicitly framed as dangerous

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ False dilemma
➡️ Foreign policy realities cannot be reduced to simple party logic

---

🔟 Political exploitation of grief

Excerpt:
The recurring endpoint of the tragic story:
“that is why Fidesz is the safe choice”

Technique:
➡️ Converts a personal death into a campaign message
➡️ Directly links empathy to political preference
➡️ Ends not with mourning, but with voting instruction

Goal:
➡️ To turn emotional shock into political capital
➡️ To use grief as a mobilization tool

Effect:
➡️ The reader may feel that the “correct” response to grief is political support
➡️ Moral reaction becomes tied to party loyalty

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ A human tragedy and a campaign conclusion are not the same
➡️ This is especially powerful because it transforms moral sensitivity into voting behavior

---

🧩 Overall pattern: what is the core propaganda formula?

The structure of the text:

a tragic, partly unclear death
→ framed as a national grievance
→ embedded in a narrative of Ukrainian brutality and Hungarian vulnerability
→ amplified through fear
→ simplified into a political conclusion: Fidesz = peace

So it does not merely inform, but builds a directed emotional pathway:

empathy → outrage → fear → loyalty → voting message

---

📌 Strongest propaganda tools in this text

• emotional shock opening
• family-based grief framing
• presenting suspicion as fact
• turning external threat into internal fear
• false dilemma: peace vs opposition
• political use of tragedy

---

📝 One-sentence summary

This text uses a human tragedy to demonize Ukraine, generate fear among the Hungarian public, and convert that fear into political loyalty toward Fidesz.

Well, they’re clearly not being paid for their intelligence in Brussels either!

The president of the European Union’s liberal party, Renew, posted about the Peace March and claimed that “hundreds of thousands are marching against Viktor Orbán.”
He couldn’t have been more wrong, since on Sunday we gathered in such large numbers דווקא to stand up for Viktor Orbán and Hungary’s sovereignty.

To make it clear that no matter how much Zelensky and Péter Magyar coordinate, we will not give in to blackmail and we will not be dragged into a war.

And on April 12, we will make it obvious that Fidesz is the only safe choice!

Well, these people aren’t exactly being paid for their intelligence in Brussels either. The Renew — that is, the liberal party’s president and group leader — shared a video from the Peace March from Brussels and commented that hundreds of thousands were marching against Viktor Orbán. Then, of course, after the blunder, the video was deleted.

Now the group leader says that the reality is that this many people are marching in support of Viktor Orbán, standing up against the blackmail that Zelensky and his allies, together with Péter Magyar and his circle, have been carrying out against our country in recent weeks and months.

Glad I could help.

1️⃣ “They are stupid / paid” – discrediting and delegitimization

(ad hominem / delegitimization)

Excerpt:
“Well, they’re not paid for their intelligence from Brussels!”

Technique:
➡️ Attacks the opponent personally, not their arguments
➡️ Implies foreign funding (“paid from Brussels”)
➡️ Mocking, dismissive tone

Goal:
➡️ Immediate discrediting
➡️ Emotional priming of the reader (“don’t take them seriously”)

Effect:
➡️ “If they’re paid → then they’re lying”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No evidence for the “payment” claim
➡️ Does not refute the actual argument

---

2️⃣ Reframing reality (frame battle)

(reframing / narrative control)

Excerpt:
“hundreds of thousands marching against Viktor Orbán” → “actually for him”

Technique:
➡️ Assigns two opposite meanings to the same event
➡️ Replaces data with interpretation
➡️ Own narrative: “Peace March = support”

Goal:
➡️ Control the meaning
➡️ “Rewrite” political reality

Effect:
➡️ “what you see → you misunderstand, we tell you the truth”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No objective numbers or sources
➡️ Two competing claims without evidence

---

3️⃣ Crowd = truth narrative

(bandwagon / mass legitimacy)

Excerpt:
“so many of us gathered to stand up…”

Technique:
➡️ Derives truth from the size of the crowd
➡️ “many people → therefore they are right”

Goal:
➡️ Strengthen legitimacy
➡️ Attract undecided voters

Effect:
➡️ “if so many support it → I should too”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Crowd ≠ societal majority
➡️ A single event is not representative

👉 What you pointed out (“more people were at the Tisza march”) directly challenges this:
➡️ If the numbers are disputed → the whole narrative becomes uncertain

---

4️⃣ Building an external enemy

(external enemy / scapegoating)

Excerpt:
“Zelensky and Péter Magyar are working together”
“blackmail”

Technique:
➡️ Links foreign actors with domestic opponents
➡️ Creates a quasi-conspiracy frame
➡️ Uses loaded words: “blackmail,” “war”

Goal:
➡️ Create fear
➡️ Establish a “us vs them” dynamic

Effect:
➡️ “there is danger → we must defend → support the government”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No concrete evidence for “collaboration”
➡️ Complex geopolitical issues oversimplified

---

5️⃣ Black-and-white choice framing

(false dilemma / binary framing)

Excerpt:
“Fidesz is the only safe choice”

Technique:
➡️ Excludes all alternatives
➡️ Creates a simplified decision scenario

Goal:
➡️ Guide undecided voters
➡️ Increase perceived risk

Effect:
➡️ “if you don’t choose them → something bad will happen”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Multiple political options exist
➡️ Reality is not binary

---

6️⃣ “Mistake → we were right” narrative

(spin / narrative recovery)

Excerpt:
“they deleted the video → so they were wrong”

Technique:
➡️ Reinterprets an event (video deletion)
➡️ Uses it to reinforce own narrative

Goal:
➡️ Indirectly “prove” their own truth

Effect:
➡️ “even they admitted it” feeling

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Reason for deletion is unknown
➡️ Does not prove the claim

---

⚖️ Overall picture (your key point)

The entire text is a classic narrative battle:

Two versions of the same event:

• one side: “people protested against Orbán”
• other side: “people marched in support of Orbán”

👉 Key point:
➡️ No objective, verified numbers are presented
➡️ Both sides provide interpretation, not evidence

---

🧠 Core conclusion

The text is not trying to inform, but to:

➡️ frame reality
➡️ trigger emotions
➡️ influence political decisions

Main tools used:

• enemy construction
• crowd-based legitimacy
• oversimplification
• discrediting opponents

Don’t smoke weed!

The lead candidate of the Two-Tailed Dog Party wants to generate revenue for the state by legalizing marijuana.

Let’s not even open the endless debate about the capital’s pro-drug strategy and what those countries and major cities have become where they sided with drugs. We all know the images of streets filled with “zombies.”

But as both a mother and a politician… how can a party candidate say something like that? Who could think it’s acceptable to make money from people’s addiction, their gradual mental decline, and even their deaths?

Apart from dealers, apparently the politicians of the Dog Party.

Just as we must show zero tolerance toward dealers and drugs, we must also show zero tolerance toward pro-drug policies.

On April 12, Fidesz is the party of zero tolerance!

“Would you grow drugs in villages and call that a good idea?” says the Dog Party’s leading figure. What do you think about that? What would you most rely on to increase Hungary’s state revenues?

“Well, one important topic, in my view, would be allowing the residential cultivation of cannabis, even in poorer regions.”

You really shouldn’t smoke that much, because then people start saying such nonsense—dangerous nonsense, in fact. As a mother, I am completely outraged when someone talks about legalizing cannabis and its cultivation.

Cannabis is a gateway drug. That means it can open the path toward harder drugs. There is no amount or type of drug that doesn’t cause serious harm in a person’s life, whether mentally or physically.

Anyone who argues in favor of drugs is putting our children’s future at risk and wants to destroy it.

As long as we are in government, this will absolutely not be possible.

We will continue to stand for a safe future for Hungarian youth—one that has no place for drugs in any form.

1️⃣ “Don’t smoke weed!” – moral superiority + shaming

(moral superiority + shaming framing)

Excerpt:
“Don’t smoke weed!”
“You shouldn’t smoke this much, because then people start saying stupid things like this”

Technique:
➡️ Doesn’t argue → resorts to personal attack
➡️ Frames the opposing position as “drug-induced stupidity”
➡️ Shuts down debate through shaming

Goal:
➡️ Immediately discredit the opponent
➡️ Discourage rational discussion

Effect:
➡️ “Anyone who supports this = stupid / a drug user”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No policy-level debate
➡️ Complete lack of substantive arguments

---

2️⃣ Fear appeal – “cities full of zombies”

(fear appeal / exaggeration)

Excerpt:
“We all know the images of streets full of zombies”

Technique:
➡️ Uses extreme, visual fear imagery
➡️ Generalization (“this is how it is everywhere”)
➡️ No concrete examples

Goal:
➡️ Trigger emotional shock
➡️ Link disgust and fear to the topic

Effect:
➡️ “legalization = societal collapse”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No evidence that all countries with legalization look like this
➡️ Reduces a complex issue to a horror image

---

3️⃣ Absolute “gateway drug” narrative

(oversimplification / selective science)

Excerpt:
“Weed is a gateway drug”

Technique:
➡️ Presents a debated theory as a fact
➡️ No scientific context provided
➡️ Oversimplifies cause-and-effect

Goal:
➡️ Create a simple, easy-to-understand fear narrative
➡️ “If you allow this → heroin comes next”

Effect:
➡️ Justifies zero tolerance

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Scientific consensus is not uniform
➡️ It’s a multi-factor issue (social, economic, mental health)

---

4️⃣ Justifying total prohibition – “no safe amount”

(absolutist framing)

Excerpt:
“There is no amount that doesn’t cause harm”

Technique:
➡️ Black-and-white claim
➡️ No nuance → no debate possible

Goal:
➡️ Fully close the political discussion
➡️ Exclude compromise

Effect:
➡️ “If even a little is harmful → ban everything”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Not applied consistently to other substances (alcohol, tobacco)
➡️ Inconsistent regulatory logic

---

5️⃣ Appeal to children

(appeal to children / emotional trigger)

Excerpt:
“It puts our children’s future at risk”

Technique:
➡️ Uses children as an emotional shield
➡️ Moral attack → disagreement = endangering children

Goal:
➡️ Gain moral high ground
➡️ Shut down debate

Effect:
➡️ “If you disagree → you are against children”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Ignores alternative models (e.g. regulated market vs. black market)

---

6️⃣ Conflation: politician = drug dealer

(demonization / false equivalence)

Excerpt:
“Besides dealers, the Kutyapárt politicians too”

Technique:
➡️ Equates policy proposal with criminal activity
➡️ Moral stigmatization

Goal:
➡️ Fully delegitimize the opponent
➡️ Frame it as crime, not debate

Effect:
➡️ “They are the same as drug dealers”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Completely different categories (regulation vs. illegal trade)

---

7️⃣ “Zero tolerance” identity framing

(identity framing / strong leadership image)

Excerpt:
“Fidesz is the party of zero tolerance”

Technique:
➡️ Simple, strong slogan
➡️ Projects firmness and control

Goal:
➡️ Appeal to desire for security
➡️ Mobilize supporters

Effect:
➡️ “They will protect us → vote for them”

⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No concrete policy details

---

8️⃣ False dilemma

(false dichotomy)

Implied frame:
➡️ Either:

• drugs + chaos
• or: total prohibition + safety

Technique:
➡️ Excludes middle-ground solutions
(e.g. decriminalization, regulation, prevention)

Goal:
➡️ Force a simplified choice

Effect:
➡️ “There is only one correct option”

---

🧠 Overall picture

This text is a classic example of highly emotional, fear-based propaganda that:

➡️ does not engage in policy debate
➡️ instead creates moral panic
➡️ and builds an enemy image

Key tools:

• fear (zombies, death)
• invoking children
• personal attacks
• oversimplification
• black-and-white thinking

---

⚖️ In short (core message)

👉 It’s not about what works better in drug policy
👉 It’s about:

“fear + anger + choose us”