Left-wing polling companies are not conducting genuine measurements; instead, they are trying to influence voters. However, if we step outside their bubble, reality immediately becomes clear.

Hungarians have both common sense and heart, and in April we will choose a responsible leader who stands up for Hungarian interests even in times of war.

Fidesz is the safe choice.

Median, for example, fundamentally prepares its surveys on political commission, aiming to influence the elections. Their message is that it is worth lining up behind Péter Magyar because he supposedly not only has a chance, but that the race is already decided and he will defeat Fidesz. None of this is true. Anyone who reads other polls can see a 20% difference being claimed — which is completely ridiculous. Deák Dániel has also exposed that this supposed gap is not real at all, and that the two largest parties are actually neck and neck.

It is my firm conviction, and also my personal experience, that our results are in fact much better than what Median has reported. Our individual constituency results and expectations are also significantly stronger.

That is why I say: everyone should reject Median’s attempt at manipulation and instead trust what they see around them. Look at the world. I believe everyone feels that this election carries enormous stakes.

Viktor Orbán is the only leader willing to stand up for Hungarian interests, even when he is attacked for doing so. Péter Magyar, in the current situation, does not stand up for Hungarians — not even when the Ukrainians deliberately shut down the oil pipeline supplying Hungary. What can we expect from such a person?

I believe Hungarians sense this as well, and on April 12 they will make their decision accordingly.

1️⃣ Delegitimizing Pollsters Technique: “left-wing pollsters” “political commission” “attempt to influence voters” “bubble” Goal: Preemptive discrediting. If the numbers are unfavorable, the strategy is not to debate the data professionally, but to label the pollster as a political actor. Effect: The follower does not ask: “What is the methodology?” but instead asks: “Who is behind it?” This is a classic source attack. 2️⃣ Offering an Alternative Reality (“20% is ridiculous”) Here, the counter-narrative appears: “neck and neck” “our results are much better” “in my personal experience” Technique: Positioning subjective impressions against statistical data. Goal: Emotional certainty > statistical uncertainty. Effect: The audience reinforces its belief by referring to its own environment: “My acquaintances are saying the same thing.” This is a typical anecdotal override. 3️⃣ External Threat + Betrayal Frame The Ukrainian oil pipeline issue appears alongside the motif of “not standing up for Hungarians.” Key elements: “the Ukrainians are deliberately shutting it off” “does not stand up” “only Orbán” Technique: Turning a complex energy dispute into a question of moral loyalty. Goal: Transforming the election from a policy debate into a loyalty test. Effect: Whoever is not with Orbán → remains silent → therefore complicit. 4️⃣ The “Only Responsible Leader” Construction Orbán Viktor = the only one who stands up for the country. This is the classic monopolized competence narrative. As a political parallel, this framing is often used for other leaders as well, such as: Donald Trump Volodimir Zelenszkij In both cases, we can observe the personalized legitimacy pattern: “Only he is capable of protecting the country.” 🧠 The “Retreat and Attack” Pattern The mechanism works as follows: An unfavorable piece of data appears. The source is reclassified as a political actor. Subjective personal experience is elevated above numbers. The discussion is redirected toward existential threat. The speaker presents their own leader as the only solution. This is not a policy debate, but psychological stabilization communication aimed at the speaker’s own camp. 🎯 The Bottom Line The text is not about: actual levels of support, or methodological questions. It is about this message: “Don’t believe the polls. Believe us. And be afraid if we don’t win.” This is classic mobilization rhetoric.

❗ In times of danger, it is especially important that we grant a mandate to a strong leader in April. Viktor Orbán speaks the same language as heavyweight presidents who lead the world’s most powerful nations.

However, this is not self-evident.

With a single bad decision, we could wipe everything away. What can we expect from Péter Magyar, who cannot even keep his own private life under control? Such a reckless person would quietly fall into the pro-Brussels, pro-Ukraine mainstream, where he would be incapable of saying no. He would casually give up our veto right — and once that is gone, we would never be able to regain it, even if the national government were to return.

🟠 This is, in fact, what is at stake in this election. We must place our trust in a government that will continue to stand up for Hungarian interests after April — which is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

…because today is the era of strong leaders. We may think this is good or bad, we may think whatever we want about it, but we see that politics today is conducted in the language of power. Trump speaks this language, the Chinese speak this language, the Turkish president speaks this language. Europe does not speak this language — Viktor Orbán speaks this language in Europe.

And the reality is that Péter Magyar is not someone who could go there and, even for a single minute, stand firmly against more than twenty member states and the Brussels leadership to represent Hungarian interests decisively. Once again: someone who is incapable of firmly drawing lines and setting boundaries in their own life will not suddenly possess a different personality as the leader of a country.

There are two things we would not be able to undo. First, if Ukraine is admitted to the European Union in the next cycle, some will say, “Well then, Péter Magyar will veto it,” or “He can still stop it later.” And then they will claim it is a great achievement if Ukraine joins six months later instead of earlier — as if that somehow proves he did not lie.

But we would not be able to remove Ukraine from the European Union once it is admitted. This is not like buying a phone in a store, trying it out, and returning it if you prefer another brand. It does not work that way.

The decisions made after April — and the decisions made by the country’s leader — will determine whether Ukraine joins the EU or not. If it does, everything comes with it: our money flows away, agricultural dumping products arrive, our own economy is effectively undermined, and enormous sums will be required to finance Ukraine within the European Union.

And let us not forget that efforts are underway to take away Hungary’s veto right — our current legal ability, in certain matters, to block decisions that require unanimity within the European Union. If Péter Magyar gives that up, Viktor Orbán would not be able to reverse it later. Nor could he remove Ukraine from the EU once admitted. After 2026, it would not be possible to undo such decisions.

🟠 Szentkirályi Alexandra’s Communication – Propaganda Analysis

The text represents a classic, multi-layered mobilization narrative.
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect

---

1️⃣ “Age of Dangers” – Permanent Threat Framing

📌 Technique:
“In times of danger,” “the age of strong leaders,” “politics is conducted in the language of power.”

🎯 Goal:
To frame the election as an extraordinary historical moment.

💥 Effect:
Rational evaluation is replaced by existential fear.
“This is not the time to experiment.”

---

2️⃣ Invoking the International Power Hierarchy

📌 Technique:
Positioning Orbán Viktor on the same level as global actors:
Donald Trump,
Xi Jinping,
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

🎯 Goal:
Authority transfer.
If they are “strong,” then the one who “speaks their language” must also be strong.

💥 Effect:
Voters evaluate status rather than policy.

---

3️⃣ Personal Discrediting (Ad Hominem)

📌 Technique:
Referring to Magyar Péter’s private life → “someone who cannot even keep order in his own life.”

🎯 Goal:
Reducing political competence to a personal character flaw.

💥 Effect:
Policy debate disappears → personality politics remains.

---

4️⃣ Dramatizing Irreversibility

📌 Technique:
“If Ukraine joins the EU, it can never be removed.”
“If the veto is given up, it can never be regained.”

🎯 Goal:
To frame the decision as a final, apocalyptic turning point.

💥 Effect:
The election becomes an “ultimate last chance” narrative.

---

5️⃣ Vision of Economic Collapse

📌 Technique:
“Our money will be drained,”
“agricultural dumping,”
“we will destroy our own economy.”

🎯 Goal:
To transform EU enlargement into a direct livelihood threat.

💥 Effect:
Fear + zero-sum thinking (“if they gain, we lose”).

---

6️⃣ The EU as a Hostile Center

📌 Technique:
“They want to take away our veto.”
“The Brussels leadership.”

🎯 Goal:
To frame the debate as a sovereignty struggle.

💥 Effect:
Domestic elections are recast as a fight against external forces.

---

7️⃣ False Analogy (Returning a Phone to the Store)

📌 Technique:
EU membership compared to buying and returning a phone.

🎯 Goal:
Simplifying a complex legal process.

💥 Effect:
Creates an easily understandable but distorted mental model.

---

8️⃣ Binary Electoral Framing

📌 Narrative:
Fidesz = strength, sovereignty, protection
TISZA = Brussels, Ukraine, compliance

🎯 Goal:
Narrowing the political spectrum to two moral options.

💥 Effect:
No nuance → identity-based choice.

---

🧠 Summary – What Is the Strategic Pattern?

This communication:

• builds on fear (war, financial loss, loss of veto power)
• builds on authority (strong global leaders)
• uses personal discrediting
• frames the election as an irreversible decision
• presents politics as a sovereignty war

Core Message:

👉 “This is not the time to take risks.”
👉 “We need a strong leader, not an experiment.”

❗ Ukrainian blackmail is unprecedented even in a decades-long perspective. The oil blockade and threats associated with Zelensky demand heightened attention in this wartime situation, which is why the government has decided to place the most important energy facilities under military protection.

Hungary will not allow itself to be intimidated! 🇭🇺

From the moment a neighboring country, in such a vulnerable situation as the one Hungary or Slovakia currently faces from an energy standpoint, chooses not to cooperate but instead effectively tries to undermine and blackmail us, that constitutes an astonishing attack on Hungary’s energy security — something we have not experienced for years, perhaps even decades.

It is also evident that the Ukrainians have something to hide. When the Slovak and Hungarian prime ministers propose allowing an independent fact-finding committee from the two countries to examine whether there are indeed technical or engineering obstacles preventing oil deliveries, Ukraine refuses to allow it. This strongly suggests that the issue is not technical difficulties, but rather a deliberate action against Hungary’s energy security.

Given that reports continue to indicate that the threat has not diminished and that the pressure and blackmail have not eased, the Prime Minister has decided to place the most critical and most vulnerable energy facilities and institutions under military protection.

It is deeply regrettable that we must even discuss defending ourselves in this way against a neighboring country.

1️⃣ Framing it as “Blackmail” and “Attack”

Technique:
Elevating an economic/supply dispute into a military-moral category:

• “Ukrainian blackmail”
• “Unprecedented attack”
• “Threat”

Goal:
To present the energy issue not as a policy debate, but as a matter of national security aggression.

Effect:
The audience no longer asks: What is the technical situation?
Instead, they ask: Who is attacking us?

---

2️⃣ Implying Intentionality Without Evidence

Technique:
“They are not allowing the commission in → therefore it must be deliberate.”

Goal:
To transform uncertainty into certainty.

Effect:
A logical leap begins to function as emotional proof.

---

3️⃣ Dramatizing Military Protection

Technique:
Emphasizing that facilities are being placed “under military protection.”

Goal:
To maximize the perceived severity of the threat.
To strengthen the government’s role as “protector.”

Effect:
Strong leader – external enemy – defending nation narrative.

---

4️⃣ Emphasizing Historical Exceptionality

Technique:
“We have not seen anything like this for decades.”

Goal:
To signal an extraordinary situation.

Effect:
Crisis awareness → internal cohesion.

---

5️⃣ Moral Contrast

Technique:
“We are cooperative, they are not.”

Goal:
To establish moral superiority.

Effect:
The conflict is framed not as a dispute between two sides, but as good vs. bad.

---

🧠 The Deeper Narrative

Simplified structure:

Ukraine (intentionally) → threatens
Hungary → defends
The government → protects

This is a classic siege-state framing.

---

⚖️ What Is Worth Separating Calmly

You — who regularly analyze the Adria vs. Druzhba capacity debate, the Janaf–MOL dispute, and the sanctions-related legal questions — know that three distinct issues are being merged here:

1. Technical capacity question (pipeline, refinery configuration)
2. Legal/sanctions dispute
3. Political communication

The speech compresses all three into a single concept: “blackmail.”

🚨 In times of war, an oil blockade is particularly dangerous. Zelensky keeps making promises, while there is no real obstacle to restarting the Druzhba oil pipeline. By now, it is completely clear that the Ukrainian president is acting against the Hungarian people. He wants to see fuel prices at 1,000 forints per liter in Hungary, which is why he is unwilling to allow our investigative committee to enter the country.

Péter Magyar, meanwhile, remains silent on the issue. Once again, we see that the leader of the left is incapable of saying no to instructions coming from Kyiv.

🟠 The national government will not give in to blackmail. We stand against the war and for Hungarian interests — which is why Fidesz is the safe choice.

It is not as simple as replacing cheaper eastern oil with more expensive western oil, because it also has to be processed — and that may require modifications that take one and a half to two years. So what happened today, partly because of the war involving Iran, and what Zelensky did by shutting down the Druzhba oil pipeline, effectively placed Hungary under an oil blockade.

If we did not know the Ukrainians — including their president, who certainly knows how to look after his own interests — and if we had not prepared for this possibility and maximized our reserves, as we have done (in a way only partially visible to the public), we would be in serious trouble today. That would mean that combined with rising global market prices and the oil blockade, fuel prices could indeed skyrocket — even up to 1,000 forints or more per liter.

There is also the risk that a significant portion of the revenue generated from this oil could disappear if we were to forget past arrangements. To put it politely, we ask the companies involved to contribute to the utility price reduction fund, and they do so. The support necessary for maintaining reduced household utility prices — which you receive — is paid in part from these revenues.

So while we are talking only about oil, if oil supplies stop and we cannot resolve the situation, there will not be enough money for utility price reductions either. And in that moment, oil — which may seem like a distant industrial issue — is suddenly in your pocket and in your home.

What Zelensky has done now is not against Hungarian industry, not against MOL — it is against every single Hungarian citizen.

---

1️⃣ “Oil blockade” = Framing it as a military attack

Technique:

• “Oil blockade”
• “We have been attacked”
• “In times of war, this is especially dangerous”

An economic/logistical dispute is elevated into a military category.

Goal:

• Maximize the sense of danger.
• Reframe it from a policy debate into a national security issue.

Effect:

• The audience perceives not a technical or market problem, but a hostile act.
• Criticism becomes associated with the shadow of disloyalty.

---

2️⃣ Personalized enemy image – Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Technique:

• “He is acting against the Hungarian people.”
• “He wants to see 1,000-forint fuel prices in Hungary.”

Concrete intent is attributed without evidence.

Goal:

• Trigger moral outrage.
• Attach anger to a specific individual.

Effect:

• Not a “war environment” or a “sanctions dispute,”
  but deliberate ill will by a named actor.

---

3️⃣ 1,000 HUF fuel price – Psychological price threshold

Technique:

• Introducing an extreme number (“1,000 forints”).
• Conditional future projection (“prices could skyrocket”).

Goal:

• Create a concrete, emotionally accessible fear scenario.
• Tie energy policy directly to people’s wallets.

Effect:

• The audience stops weighing geopolitical factors
  and starts thinking about personal financial survival.

---

4️⃣ Utility price caps as a defensive shield

Technique:

Oil → state budget → utility protection fund → household → “your pocket.”

Dramatizing a cause-and-effect chain.

Goal:

• Personalize the energy policy debate.
• Frame the government as the protector.

Effect:

• Any criticism appears as an attack on utility price protection itself.

---

5️⃣ Internal traitor framing – “Péter Magyar remains silent”

Technique:

• External threat + internal silence.
• “Unable to say no to orders from Kyiv.”

Goal:

• Create a sense of external–internal conspiracy.
• Transform political competition into a question of national loyalty.

Effect:

• Not a policy alternative, but a loyalty test.

---

🎯 What is common in the communication style of Viktor Orbán and “Alexa”?

• War metaphors applied to economic disputes.
• Attribution of personal intent without verifiable evidence.
• Extreme price thresholds (1,000 HUF) used as fear anchors.
• Utility price protection framed as a moral shield.
• Questioning the loyalty of domestic opposition figures.

---

⚖️ Points open to debate (from a policy perspective)

• The operation of the Druzhba oil pipeline is influenced by war conditions and sanctions.
• Alternative sourcing can indeed require refinery adjustments (Urals vs. Brent crude types).
• Fuel prices do not depend solely on pipeline closures, but also on:
  • Global market prices
  • Refinery capacity
  • Exchange rates
  • Tax policy

The “oil blockade = 1,000 HUF fuel” narrative is therefore a simplification.

---

🧩 The core of the propaganda frame

It is not fundamentally about oil.
It is about this structure:

“We protect you. They attack you. If you’re not with us, you’re with them.”

After the anti-war rally, an anti-war women’s conference at the Parliament!

We, as women, know exactly this: peace is not weakness. Peace is not a refuge for the weak — it is the decision of the strong.

Because wars are not fought by those who order them, but suffered by those who have no choice.

And peace is also a responsibility. Responsibility toward our past. Responsibility toward our children. And responsibility toward those women from whom history has already taken far too much.

That is why the national government’s peace policy matters. Because we know that war is not something to be won, but something to be avoided — for in war there are no winners, only loss.

After Esztergom, we are now here in front of Parliament. What is the next task?

We are here because after the DPK anti-war rally in Esztergom concluded, I am now heading to Parliament for another event with an anti-war theme — a gathering specifically addressed to women.

I believe that women carry a tremendous responsibility even now: to remain persistent and gentle, yet to be the voices of reason and peace.

We know that women suffer greatly in war. I have unfortunately witnessed this myself in Transcarpathia, through the story of a mother who lost her son.

That is why it is important to stand up for peace.

1️⃣ Framing Moral Superiority (“peace is the decision of the strong”)

📌 Technique:
Peace policy is elevated from a strategic issue to a moral category.
“Peace is not weakness” → pre-emptively deflects accusations of weakness.

🎯 Goal:
To place the government’s position on moral high ground.

💥 Effect:
Anyone who questions it is implicitly positioned as being “on the side of war.”

---

2️⃣ Legitimization Through Gender Role (“we, women, know”)

📌 Technique:
Invoking female identity as a source of moral authority.

🎯 Goal:
To associate peace policy with maternal, caring, morally superior positioning.

💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from rational analysis to an emotional plane.
Opposing views → framed as “insensitive.”

---

3️⃣ Focus on Suffering (“wars are not fought by those who order them…”)

📌 Technique:
Contrast between decision-makers and those who suffer.

🎯 Goal:
To frame the conflict as an elite vs. ordinary people divide.

💥 Effect:
The audience identifies with the “victim” position.

---

4️⃣ Personal Story (a mother from Transcarpathia)

📌 Technique:
Individual tragedy → generalized political conclusion.

🎯 Goal:
To reinforce the argument with emotional evidence.

💥 Effect:
Emotional identification overrides geopolitical nuance.

---

5️⃣ False Dichotomy (“war should not be won, but avoided”)

📌 Technique:
Presenting the choice as if it were:
A) peace
B) wanting war

🎯 Goal:
To oversimplify the political debate.

💥 Effect:
Key questions disappear:
– What if a country is attacked?
– What is the difference between aggression and self-defense?

---

6️⃣ Repetition and Rhythm

“Responsibility toward our past.
Responsibility toward our children.
Responsibility…”

📌 Technique: Rhetorical anaphora.

🎯 Goal:
Emotional reinforcement and speech rhythm.

💥 Effect:
The message becomes memorable.

---

🧠 Overall Structure

The narrative is built as follows:

Women → suffering → moral responsibility → peace → national government → moral correctness.

This is not policy-based argumentation, but identity- and emotion-driven mobilization.