The Ukrainians want a Hungarian government that supports Ukraine’s EU membership, provides weapons and money, and would even accept human sacrifice if necessary. Today, Hungary stands in the way of this, and it sets a dangerous example for Europeans by showing that it is possible to say no.

Because we do say no. Cooperation is important, but fast-tracking Ukraine’s accession to the European Union would bring war and severe economic damage.

As long as Hungary has a national government, we will not allow ourselves to be dragged into a war. For us, the security of Hungary and the Hungarian people comes first.

The Ukrainians are using every possible means to ensure that Hungary has a government that guarantees three things: that Ukraine is admitted to the European Union, that it provides weapons — and if necessary, even people — and that it hands over a significant portion of its money. These are the three things they want. Today, Hungary is an obstacle to this. In fact, Hungary is a dangerous example, because it shows that it is also possible not to give in.

Hungary does not support Ukraine’s EU membership. This is how they behave already — and what would happen if they were inside? Not to mention that if we admit them to the Union, we also admit the war. There is no such thing as one EU Member State fighting along a 1,000-kilometre front while the others do not come to its aid. If one EU Member State ends up in a state of war, the others can hardly exempt themselves from involvement.

That is why we must cooperate with Ukraine and reach agreements with them — but we must not admit them as a member, because that would bring the war inside. And it would also ruin the economy.

1️⃣ External Interference Frame – “The Ukrainians want a government that…”

📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + external threat narrative
👉 The domestic political debate is presented as driven by outside will.
👉 The Hungarian election is framed not as an internal political matter, but as a clash of foreign interests.

🎯 Goal:
– Activate national self-defense instincts
– Tie the political opponent to a “foreign principal”

💥 Effect:
Voters do not weigh policy platforms; instead they ask:
“Who is trying to interfere in our country’s fate?”

---

2️⃣ War-Import Metaphor – “We would be letting the war in”

📌 Technique: fear amplification + metaphorical dramatization
👉 EU membership is not framed as a legal–political issue, but as a physical danger.
👉 “Letting the war in” equates accession with opening the border to a concrete threat.

🎯 Goal:
– Trigger existential fear
– Frame EU enlargement as a security risk

💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from economic–legal reasoning → to a survival-level concern.

---

3️⃣ Moral Ultimatum – “Weapons, money, even people if necessary”

📌 Technique: three-part escalation + shocking endpoint
👉 The list intensifies step by step (money → weapons → human lives).
👉 The strongest emotional trigger comes last.

🎯 Goal:
– Maximize the perceived stakes
– Turn the decision into a moral compulsion

💥 Effect:
Voters feel the choice is literally a matter of life and death.

---

4️⃣ “Dangerous Example” – Normative Threat Framing

📌 Technique: precedent-setting narrative
👉 Hungary is portrayed not merely as different, but as setting a “dangerous example.”
👉 The international conflict gains a moral dimension.

🎯 Goal:
– Strengthen internal group cohesion (“we are the ones resisting”)
– Construct a heroic self-image

💥 Effect:
Identity-based loyalty intensifies.

---

5️⃣ Inevitability Logic – “We could hardly opt out”

📌 Technique: deterministic argumentation
👉 Suggests that as an EU member, there would be no room for choice.
👉 A complex international legal issue is simplified into a binary inevitability.

🎯 Goal:
– Eliminate uncertainty
– Create a sense that “there is no alternative”

💥 Effect:
The audience is less likely to explore alternative scenarios.

---

🎯 Overall Picture

The text follows a classic sovereignty–fear-based campaign framework built on:

• External interference
• War threat
• Economic collapse
• Moral resistance
• National self-defense

It is not a policy debate about the conditions of EU accession,
but an identity-based choice:

👉 “Let the war in” vs. “Protect Hungary.”

❓️ Who benefits from the shutdown of Russian oil?

If there is no Russian oil and we have to source energy elsewhere, it will not be Hungarian families who benefit, but international energy companies, Shell, and major financial players.

➡️ People linked to multinational corporations do not enter politics because they are concerned about Hungarian families. They are not coming to protect utility price caps — which they call a sham and want to abolish — or family support financed from the bank tax. They are coming to reclaim their money. Including the 15,000 billion forints that the state previously collected from them in the name of burden-sharing. One of the key stakes of the election, therefore, is how much large international companies leave in the common pot and how much they take out of the country.

The “regime change” they speak about actually means dismantling the model that supports families, agriculture, and small and medium-sized enterprises. The real question is whether the money stays in Hungary or flows back to big capital. We want to keep Hungarian families’ money at home.

🟠 That is why in April, Fidesz is the safe choice.

Regarding the recent Ukrainian decision that there will be no Russian oil and we will have to procure it elsewhere — who will be the primary winner? Shell. Shell. We cannot seriously believe that someone sent here from Shell would govern in the interest of Hungarians rather than fulfilling the mandate of their own company and serving their personal interests.

Similarly, no one was sent here from international financial institutions because poor Hungarians lack capable financial experts. That is not the issue. They were sent to remove the bank tax from the country — the very tax from which we support families. They want to reclaim that money: first the 2,000 billion forints from the 2026 budget, then step by step the 15,000 billion previously taken from them.

Let us not be blind. Elections are often about political change and power — and about money. Not personal money, but the money of large international corporations. How much should they contribute to a country’s common good? What level of social responsibility should they assume? In our view, they must contribute — and significantly. They earn well, but a portion must remain here.

Those who come directly from these companies have always considered this contribution excessive. They have always opposed and protested against it. If they come to power, what do you think will happen?

Let us not be blind. What they call “regime change” would dismantle the structure of the Hungarian economy — the Hungarian model we have built — and replace it with a Brussels model, where money flows elsewhere. Not to families, not to agriculture, not to small and medium-sized businesses, but out of the country as dividends to large capital.

That is one of the greatest stakes of this election.

1️⃣ Identifying an External Enemy – “Shell Wins First Place”

📌 Technique: external enemy framing + multinational demonization
👉 The issue is not presented as an energy or geopolitical question, but as a situation where someone is deliberately benefiting at the expense of Hungarians.
👉 Naming a specific company (Shell) personalizes the concept of “big capital.”

🎯 Goal:
– Focus public anger on a clearly identifiable actor
– Turn an economic issue into a moral conflict

💥 Effect:
Voters do not weigh the realities of energy supply.
Instead, they ask:
“Who is trying to profit off us?”

---

2️⃣ Agent Narrative – “People Sent Here”

📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + questioning loyalty
👉 The opponent is not portrayed as a political competitor, but as a “sent representative.”
👉 Implicit claim: they do not serve Hungarian interests.

🎯 Goal:
– Undermine the opposition’s legitimacy
– Turn the election into a loyalty test

💥 Effect:
The question becomes not “What do they propose?”
But: “Who do they work for?”

---

3️⃣ Money-Recovery Conspiracy – “15 Trillion”

📌 Technique: large-number activation + dramatization of threat
👉 Repetition of massive figures (2 trillion, 15 trillion).
👉 A step-by-step image of “taking the money back.”

🎯 Goal:
– Maximize the perceived stakes
– Elevate the election to an issue of economic survival

💥 Effect:
Voters do not think in terms of policy programs.
They think:
“They want to take our money.”

---

4️⃣ False Dilemma – “Keep It Here or Send It to Big Capital?”

📌 Technique: binary framing
👉 Two options only:
– money stays with families
– money goes to big capital

👉 No nuance, no middle ground.

🎯 Goal:
– Create a simple, emotionally charged decision frame
– Occupy the moral high ground

💥 Effect:
The election is no longer an economic policy debate → it becomes a question of loyalty.

---

5️⃣ “Hungarian Model vs. Brussels Model”

📌 Technique: identity framing + system-preservation narrative
👉 The current system = families, SMEs, agriculture.
👉 Change = capital outflow, dividends, foreign interests.

🎯 Goal:
– Legitimize the existing governing structure
– Make change appear dangerous

💥 Effect:
Change is not presented as an alternative → but as a threat.

---

📌 Summary

The text is not a technical policy debate about energy strategy.

It follows a classic campaign formula:

• External enemy (multinationals, Shell, Brussels)
• Internal agents
• Threat of enormous financial loss
• Defense of the national model
• A simple moral choice

The core framing:

👉 Politics = a financial struggle between big capital and the nation.
👉 The election = whether the money stays at home.

Go, Attila Steiner! Hegyvidék wants an anti-war representative who does not bow to Brussels and will not allow Hungarians’ money to be sent to Ukraine! 🇭🇺
His opponent represents the exact opposite — Péter Magyar is a captured man who can’t say no not only to Brussels but not even to a drug-fueled party.

I wholeheartedly recommend Attila to everyone in Hegyvidék and Újbuda! ☺️

There are fifty days until the April 12 parliamentary elections, so the official campaign has begun. So let me welcome you here, Szandra, at the Fidesz office on Királyhágó Square, and thank you very much for being among our first supporters.

Well, I am truly very happy to recommend Attila with the best of intentions. I have known him for a long time, and this district would gain a very determined, reliable, hardworking, and decent representative in him. So I encourage everyone to vote for Attila — and first, to help him collect the necessary nomination signatures.

Beyond knowing Attila personally and being able to sincerely recommend him, I also know that as the Fidesz–KDNP candidate, he stands with the national side. Everyone there represents the position that we want to stay out of this war, we do not want to send Hungarians’ money to Ukraine, and we will defend Hungarian sovereignty.

That is what we can expect from Attila — and that is why I recommended him, with all my heart.

Thank you very much!
Let’s make Hegyvidék and Újbuda great again — Fidesz is the safe choice!

🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis – The “Anti-War vs. Captured Man” Narrative

The text follows a classic campaign communication structure: personal endorsement + war framing + character assassination + loyalty-based identity construction.
I’ll break it down using the usual framework: Technique – Goal – Effect.

---

1️⃣ “Anti-war representative” – Moral Framing

📌 Technique: binary framing + moral high ground

👉 The candidate is not defined by policy or program, but by a moral category: “anti-war.”
👉 The election is framed not as a policy choice, but as a moral stance.

🎯 Goal:
– Elevate the campaign into a security issue
– Turn voting into a moral obligation

💥 Effect:
The voter no longer evaluates what the candidate has done,
but instead asks: “peace or war?”

---

2️⃣ “Does not bow to Brussels” – Sovereignty Narrative

📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + external enemy construction

👉 The political conflict becomes a question of national independence.
👉 “Brussels” appears as a faceless external power center.

🎯 Goal:
– Activate national identity
– Question the opponent’s loyalty

💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from policy to allegiance:
“Hungarian interests or foreign interests?”

---

3️⃣ “Magyar Péter is a captured man” – Delegitimization

📌 Technique: character assassination + insinuation

👉 Claims the opponent is “captured” without concrete evidence.
👉 Attacks the person rather than the argument.

🎯 Goal:
– Undermine the opponent’s autonomy
– Create distrust

💥 Effect:
The audience questions personal integrity rather than policy positions.

---

4️⃣ “Can’t even say no to a drug party” – Moral Smear

📌 Technique: scandal framing + reputational attack

👉 Suggests moral weakness without context or proof.
👉 The phrase “drug party” acts as a strong emotional trigger.

🎯 Goal:
– Provoke moral outrage
– Portray the opponent as unserious or irresponsible

💥 Effect:
Political debate turns into moral judgment.

---

5️⃣ “I personally know him” – Credibility Shield

📌 Technique: testimonial framing + personal endorsement

👉 The candidate’s virtues are supported by personal acquaintance, not facts.
👉 “I wholeheartedly recommend him” reinforces emotional trust.

🎯 Goal:
– Build credibility
– Create a sense of closeness and authenticity

💥 Effect:
The voter feels they are receiving insider validation.

---

6️⃣ “On the national side everyone…” – Group Identity Construction

📌 Technique: in-group vs. out-group framing

👉 The “national side” is presented as morally positive.
👉 The opponent is implicitly placed outside the national community.

🎯 Goal:
– Strengthen tribal loyalty
– Intensify polarization

💥 Effect:
The election becomes identity-based rather than policy-based.

---

7️⃣ “Fidesz is the safe choice” – Security Anchor

📌 Technique: certainty framing + fear contrast

👉 Uncertainty (war, Brussels, Ukraine) is contrasted with safety (Fidesz).
👉 A simple, memorable closing message.

🎯 Goal:
– Activate the desire for stability
– Simplify cognitive decision-making

💥 Effect:
The choice is reduced to:
“Safe vs. risky.”

---

🔎 Overall Picture

The communication is not policy-driven, but:

• emotional
• identity-based
• security-oriented
• and strongly polarizing

Core narrative:
Peace + national sovereignty + reliable person
versus
Brussels + war + morally weak opponent

Korda György is a cross-generational legend of Hungarian music. 😎

It was a pleasure to meet him at the foundation stone ceremony for the developments at Liszt Ferenc International Airport!

• Capacity expansion of 10 million passengers per year
• New terminal
• New expressway
• New fast railway connection
• HUF 1,000 billion investment

The airport development is a huge step forward for Hungarian tourism, which provides livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of Hungarians!

the true

Those who dismiss the horrors of war have never experienced the terrible reality we are facing.

Mária is 90 years old. She lived through the world war, and its memories are forever burned into her mind. She will never forget the hunger, the sound of cannons and gunfire — that was her childhood. She knows what Budapest looks like reduced to rubble. We can be certain that anyone who has survived any war never again wants to hear about the cruelty with which people lost their loved ones in a single moment.

From today’s perspective, it is unimaginable that a tank could reduce our home — something our parents worked a lifetime to build — to ruins in an instant.

At nine years old, she had to hide for weeks in a cellar in deprivation, simply because she wanted to live. But she survived that too, and she rose again. With her defenseless family, she endured the most terrible moments. Mária’s story can serve as a warning to all of us, yet we Hungarians can still stay out of a suffocating war.

If in April we elect a government that can say no to Brussels’ war plans, then we can resist all war threats and commands — that is why Fidesz is the sure choice.

---

What was it like to live through the war there?

When we heard the whistling sound, that was the good sign, because it meant it wouldn’t hit here. The front kept getting closer to Budapest. My father’s idea was that in a small family house we were defenseless, and a family with four children would be executed sooner than a large crowd. So we moved in with my grandmother, at 62 Börösmart Street. There was no lighting. A tank drove through our gate and came into our house first. The tank stood right in the middle of the house. I was nine years old — I remember it completely.

There was a time when we had to live for three weeks with money in our pockets, but even if someone had been so rich that their coat buttons burst from all the money, they still couldn’t buy anything, because there wasn’t a single shop whose door handle you could open. There was no water; it only dripped. People stood in line with bowls and little pots so they could cook something like thin soup, anything at all to eat. They stood there day and night at a dripping source of water. Everyone was terribly afraid of us — all ten of us, everyone there. We were scabby and covered in lice.

1️⃣ Elderly Survivor as Moral Shield – “Mária, 90 Years Old”

📌 Technique: testimonial framing + moral authority
👉 The story of a 90-year-old war survivor gives the message unquestionable moral weight.
👉 The political claim derives not from data, but from suffering.

🎯 Goal:
– Elevate the debate to a moral plane
– Frame criticism as “insensitivity”

💥 Effect:
The audience does not ask: What is the current geopolitical situation?
Instead, they ask: How could I possibly be on the side of war if an elderly survivor says this?

---

2️⃣ Sensory Trauma Imagery – “a tank in the middle of the house,” “we were covered in lice”

📌 Technique: emotional shock + vivid detailing
👉 A tank inside the house
👉 People lining up for dripping water
👉 Lice, starvation

🎯 Goal:
– Trigger a physical reaction (fear, anxiety)
– Bring war into immediate, bodily proximity

💥 Effect:
The current political choice becomes a subconscious survival decision.

---

3️⃣ False Dilemma – “If we say no to Brussels, we stay out of war”

📌 Technique: binary framing
👉 Two options:

Fidesz → peace
Others → war

🎯 Goal:
Turn the election into an existential decision.

💥 Effect:
The vote is no longer a political preference, but a “family protection act.”

---

4️⃣ External Control Narrative – “Brussels’ war plans”

📌 Technique: sovereignty framing
👉 The threat is not a concrete decision, but a vague “plan.”
👉 An external, faceless force.

🎯 Goal:
National consolidation and rallying.

💥 Effect:
The election triggers a defensive, homeland-protection reflex.

---

5️⃣ Fear-Transfer Mechanism

📌 Technique: past trauma → present political conclusion
👉 The suffering of 1944–45
👉 The 2026 election

🎯 Goal:
Channel the emotional energy of World War II experiences into today’s partisan political arena.

💥 Effect:
Rational deliberation is pushed into the background.

---

🔎 Important Distinction

The horrors of war are real.
The trauma of elderly survivors is real.

The question is:
👉 Is there a concrete, official decision about Hungary entering a war?
👉 Or is historical trauma being used as a rhetorical instrument?

---

🧠 Meta-Mechanism (as you clearly see)

This is not simple fearmongering.
This is trauma-activating campaign technique.

The strongest type:

Not data.
Not a policy promise.
But collective memory.

And collective memory is extremely difficult to counter with purely rational arguments.

❗️Well, Zelensky didn’t count on this:
As long as Ukraine blocks our oil, Hungary will block the €90 billion war loan.
Mess with someone else! 😉

Ukraine is not reopening crude oil deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline, and according to the EU, there is supposedly no problem with that.

Yet if Hungary responds by restricting diesel exports to Ukraine, a special Commission meeting is immediately convened in Brussels and Hungarians are put in the dock.

Brussels has a duty to stand by EU Member States in the face of Ukraine’s political blackmail.

Restricting crude oil deliveries is not an empty threat — it continuously endangers Hungary’s energy security.

If Brussels and Kyiv succeeded in forcing a change of government and installed the Tisza Party over us, fuel and heating prices would skyrocket, while Hungary would be dragged into the war.

We cannot allow this. The national government will not yield to blackmail and stands up for Hungarian interests.

Fidesz is the only safe choice.

Bonjour! Hello! What do you think about the fact that in Brussels they convened a special meeting for the sake of the Ukrainians, but not for the Hungarians or the Slovaks? What could be the difference?

This is outrageous — a typical double standard. We expect Brussels to protect Member States if European Union solidarity is more than just a theory. We can see what it means in practice.

They are eager to help the Ukrainians: if we respond by restricting diesel exports to Ukraine, we are crucified for it and a special committee meeting is called. But when Ukraine does not reopen the Druzhba pipeline toward us — which also affects Slovakia, meaning two EU Member States — there are no consequences whatsoever.

🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis – The “Double Standards and Energy Security” Narrative

The text follows a classic sovereignty–war campaign logic: Brussels + Ukraine + blackmail + energy crisis + danger of government change.
I’ll break it down in the usual structure: Technique – Goal – Effect.

---

1️⃣ “Brussels applies double standards” – Injustice framing

📌 Technique: double standard framing + moral outrage
👉 The situation is presented not as a legal or technical dispute, but as a moral injustice.
👉 “They are protected – we are put on trial.”

🎯 Goal:
– Activate national resentment
– Strengthen anti-EU emotions

💥 Effect:
The audience does not ask: What is the specific legal situation?
Instead, they ask: Why are we being treated unfairly?

---

2️⃣ “Political blackmail” – Attribution of intent

📌 Technique: intention attribution + threat narrative
👉 The pipeline shutdown is framed not as a wartime or technical consequence, but as deliberate political pressure.

🎯 Goal:
– Identify an external enemy
– Elevate the conflict to a moral level

💥 Effect:
A complex geopolitical situation becomes simplified:
“They are attacking us.”

---

3️⃣ “Energy security at risk” – Existential fear

📌 Technique: fear appeal + pocketbook trigger
👉 Concrete, everyday consequences: fuel prices, heating costs, utility bills.
👉 The election becomes a livelihood issue.

🎯 Goal:
– Mobilize economic anxiety
– Trigger emotional reaction instead of rational debate

💥 Effect:
Voters do not weigh foreign policy considerations; they ask:
“Will I be able to afford fuel?”

---

4️⃣ “If Tisza comes → war comes” – Catastrophe chain

📌 Technique: slippery slope + binary framing
👉 Brussels + Kyiv → government change → expensive energy → war.
👉 No middle ground is presented.

🎯 Goal:
– Turn political competition into an existential decision
– Create a “security vs. chaos” framework

💥 Effect:
The election is no longer about policy programs, but about survival.

---

5️⃣ “The national government will not yield” – Protective leader narrative

📌 Technique: strong leader framing
👉 The government = shield
👉 External forces = attackers

🎯 Goal:
– Reinforce the perception of stability
– Maintain loyalty on an emotional basis

💥 Effect:
Political loyalty becomes linked to the feeling of safety.

---

🧩 The Structure of the Entire Narrative

1. External threat (Ukraine)
2. Unfair Brussels
3. Risk of energy crisis
4. Government change = war + price hikes
5. Only one safe choice

This is a highly emotional, polarizing campaign framework that transforms a geopolitical debate into an existential, moral, and identity-based question.