Tag: facebook propaganda

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.

The government has decided on the details of the January utility price cap – we are giving a 30% discount on January consumption!
Whether it’s gas, electricity, or district heating, the discount applies to everyone. The package provides 50 billion forints of support to Hungarian families.

🟠 The left would abolish it, we are keeping it. As long as there is a national government in Hungary, we don’t even want to hear about expensive liquefied gas or multinational interests. We will continue to stand by low utility costs — that’s why Fidesz is the safe choice.

January utility bills will be 30% cheaper. A 30% discount will be applied to January gas consumption. Yes, also for district heating. Those who heat or cook with electricity only need to declare that they want the discount applied to their electricity bill instead of gas. Tisza politicians would cut us off from predictable, cheap Russian gas, but we will protect the utility cost reduction — that’s why Fidesz is the safe choice.

In short:

• we’re giving a 30% discount for one single month
• this is presented as “50 billion in support”
• “the left would take it away”
• “we protect cheap utilities”
• “Brussels + LNG + multinationals = the enemy”

Therefore: Fidesz = security

That’s the surface.

---

🔍 What shows underneath?

1️⃣ One-time firefighting = admission of systemic problems

If everything were fine:

• there would be no need for a special January rescue package
• people wouldn’t have to file declarations about which bill they want the discount applied to
• utility bills wouldn’t be turned into a campaign slogan

It’s like saying:

“Sure, there’s a problem — but here’s a bit of air for now.”

That’s not a stable system.
That’s patchwork.

---

2️⃣ The proportions of the “huge help”

50 billion forints sounds big. But nationally this means:

➡️ a few thousand forints per household
➡️ for one winter month
➡️ during extreme energy prices

This is not “utility protection.”
This is crisis dampening.

---

3️⃣ The most telling part:

“The left would abolish it, we keep it.”

This is the key.

It’s not about prices.
Not about markets.
Not about the budget.

It’s about fear.

The message isn’t:

“This is how the system works.”

It’s:

“Without us, you’ll be in trouble.”

That’s dependency politics.
Not a model of strong, independent families —
but: “Stay with us, or things get worse.”

---

4️⃣ The real twist: pensions + minimum wage

In this context, something you clearly feel stands out:

• 13th–14th month pension framed as a “gift”
• minimum wage increases eaten up by inflation
• yet special utility aid is still needed

This means:

The system is so tight it has to patch over its own measures.

If wages and pensions were truly sufficient, there would be no need for a January “rescue action.”

---

5️⃣ LNG + Brussels + multinationals = fog

This part is no longer economics — it’s emotional warfare:

• no price comparison
• no contract data
• no calculations

Just:

“They want expensive, we want cheap.”

That’s storytelling format. Not energy policy.

---

🎯 Bottom line

This text doesn’t project strength.

It signals:

“The country is in a situation where even utility bills are campaign material, and monthly intervention is needed.”

That’s not stability.
That’s permanent crisis mode covered in political marketing.

I bet you don’t even know what we’re eliminating from the DC.
Of course I do. And it’s better if everyone knows.

There are three things we can protest against through the national petitions.

First: we do not want to finance this war.
Second: we do not want to finance Ukraine in the coming years either.
And third: we do not want Hungarian families’ utility bills to rise because of the war.

👉 Today, the delivery of the national petition begins, giving everyone the opportunity to send a clear message to Brussels: we will not pay!

On three key issues, we can all express our opinion:

❌ We say NO to financing the Russian–Ukrainian war!
❌ We say NO to funding Ukraine with Hungarian taxpayers’ money!
❌ We say NO to rising utility prices caused by the war!

Let’s stand together for Hungarian interests!
Only Fidesz is the safe choice! 🟠

1️⃣ “Of course I know” – false display of competence

“Let’s bet you don’t know… Of course I know.”

This is not an answer, but role-playing:

• it does not explain,
• it does not clarify,
• it closes the issue in an authoritarian way: “I know, you don’t.”

👉 Function: to dominate the situation before anyone can ask questions.

---

2️⃣ The “three NOs” – emotional packaging, not public policy

The three points are deliberately merged, even though they belong to entirely different domains:

• financing the war
• supporting Ukraine
• household utility prices

🔴 These are not the same:

• different legal frameworks,
• different budget lines,
• different decision-making levels (EU, state, market).

👉 By compressing them into a single sentence, they become one unified fear package.

---

3️⃣ “We send a message to Brussels” – false addressee

A national petition is:

• not legally binding,
• not a decision-making tool,
• not a legal act.

Yet it is presented as if:

“Brussels sends the bill, and we write back.”

👉 This creates a symbolic enemy, not a real political process.

---

4️⃣ Utilities = war – deliberate causal distortion

“We say NO to rising utility prices caused by the war.”

This sentence presents a contested narrative as fact:

• utility prices are not determined exclusively by the war;
• they also depend on:
  • market pricing,
  • long-term contracts,
  • domestic regulation,
  • political decisions.

👉 All of this disappears, leaving a single scapegoat: “the war.”

---

5️⃣ “Everyone gets a chance” – psychological involvement

This is the classic formula:

“You are part of it.”
“You are deciding too.”

In reality:

• there is no alternative answer,
• no nuance,
• only a yes/no emotional reflex.

👉 This is mobilization, not consultation.

---

6️⃣ Closing: “Only Fidesz” – fear → loyalty

The logic chain:

1. War
2. Money
3. Utility prices
4. Brussels
5. Fear
6. 👉 “Only Fidesz”

This is not an argument, but the offer of a psychological escape route:

“If you’re afraid, stay with us.”

---

🎯 In short: what is happening here?

• ❌ Not a policy debate
• ❌ Not fact-based information
• ✅ Emotional coercion + enemy construction + demand for loyalty

This is campaign messaging, not a position paper.
This is framing, not a solution.

Uh-oh! Looks like Péter will have to sue the European Court of Auditors this time. 😬 Because Brussels has exposed the real intentions of Péter Magyar and his allies.

The European Court of Auditors stated that member state contributions would be increased by **48% (!) ** and new taxes would be imposed on us to finance the war. Well, that’s just great…

This is exactly the kind of austerity program the Tisza Party denies — yet their own former expert, Balázs Csercsa, who left the party, spoke about it openly yesterday.

They would carry out Brussels’ orders and are unable and unwilling to say no to its demands.

Brussels writes the bill, and Péter Magyar’s people would make Hungarians pay it.

By contrast, Fidesz’s offer is clear and straightforward:
👉 we will protect low taxes and high family support;
👉 we will not allow Hungarian taxpayers’ money to be spent on Ukraine;
👉 and we will not approve any budget until the funds frozen from the Hungarian people are returned.

That’s how a national government does it. Fidesz is the safe choice!

1️⃣ Appeal to authority → misused

“The European Court of Auditors has stated…”

The European Court of Auditors
does not decide on political programs,
does not “order” tax increases,
does not finance wars.

👉 It examines reports, risk assessments, and policy options.
Here, however, an institutional analysis is being sold as a political intention.

This is a classic trick:

a professional document → retold as a political threat

---

2️⃣ “48% increase” = shock without context

There is no information about:

• which budgetary scenario,
• which time frame,
• under what conditions,
• whether it is even a consensus proposal.

👉 There is a number, but no explanation.
This is not information — it is an emotional удар.

---

3️⃣ War = the universal scare card

“…to finance the war”

The text deliberately conflates:

• the EU budget,
• defense debates,
• Ukraine,
• member state contributions.

👉 One single goal: fear.
Not clarifying the truth.

---

4️⃣ “Former insider” = credibility shortcut

“…which their own former expert has also revealed”

This is not evidence, but role-playing:

• no quote,
• no document,
• no verifiable claim.

👉 The “insider” is not data — it’s dramaturgy.

---

5️⃣ Attributing intent instead of proving facts

“They would carry out Brussels’ orders…”

This is not a factual statement, but a moral accusation.
There is no:

• program citation,
• vote,
• decision,
• official position.

👉 A classic propaganda principle:
you don’t say what they did — you say who they are.

---

6️⃣ “Us vs. them” — an artificial closure

At the end:

• “national government”
• “the safe choice”
• “we will protect”

👉 The debate is closed, questions are excluded.
It does not invite thinking — it demands loyalty.

---

In one sentence: the essence

This text does not expose anything. Instead, it:

• manufactures fear,
• turns professional material into a political weapon,
• and attributes intentions without evidence to the Tisza Party and to Péter Magyar.

The Fidesz “offer” here is not an argument — it is a shutdown.

👥 TISZA is packed with multinational corporate figures. István Kapitány, Anita Orbán, and Andrea Bujdosó all previously worked for the interests of foreign multinationals — and in government they would do the same.

Magyar Péter’s economic expert and his capital city faction leader both come from Shell, a company whose explicit goal is to expand sales of its expensive LNG. They even have a plan for it — István Kapitány let it slip that “a way must be found” to phase out cheap Russian gas.

But Anita Orbán is no stranger to the globalist LNG business either — she sat on the board of a London-based LNG company, naming the replacement of pipeline gas as a key objective.

🟠 With Viktor Orbán, Europe’s lowest energy prices remain — that’s why Fidesz is the safe choice.

Obviously, the faction leader — who comes from Shell circles — needs no introduction to István Kapitány. Can we detach ourselves from Russian gas and oil? A practical solution must be found, and we will be able to solve it. So what I want to say is that in the persons of István Kapitány and Anita Orbán, you have clearly designated the direction you would represent if the Hungarian people entrusted you with governing.

I became the regional head for Central and Eastern Europe and Southeastern Europe at Cheniere LNG. We hear a lot these days about liquefied natural gas as an alternative to pipeline gas. I believe Hungarian people see through this — they don’t want a Hungarian government serving foreign interests, but one that protects Hungarians, as the Fidesz–KDNP government has done in recent years.

People with backgrounds like this, coming from Shell — which plans to increase its LNG capacity by 4–5% annually over the next decade — where would they expand that? Obviously, they count on our country as well. Or Anita Orbán, who worked for a London company also dealing with LNG — such people would not put Hungarian interests first. Multinationals operate according to Brussels’ interests.

That is what is at stake in the April elections: whether people get put over Hungarians’ heads who prioritize Brussels and multinational interests, or those who can say no to Brussels and guarantee the security of Hungarian people — including through utility price protection.

🔴 1️⃣ “Multinational = traitor” framing

The core claim is not that they:

• made bad decisions
• have flawed professional proposals
• caused concrete damage

but simply this:

“multinational background → foreign interests → not serving Hungarians.”

This is guilt by association, not by evidence.

👉 A professional background (Shell, LNG company, international energy sector)
= automatically “anti-national.”

This is an emotional trigger, not an argument.

---

🟠 2️⃣ Professional competence turned into suspicion

We’re talking about energy policy.

Who understands it?

• someone who worked in the energy sector
• someone with international market experience
• someone who knows LNG, gas, infrastructure

But the text’s logic is:

“They understand it → they must represent industry interests → not Hungarian interests.”

This is a classic populist inversion:
expertise = suspicion of corruption.

---

🔥 3️⃣ Fear-based narrative: “they want to take away cheap Russian gas”

Here comes the emotional bomb:

• “they would phase out cheap Russian gas”
• “they want to force expensive LNG on us”

This is not a full lie, but a framed half-truth:

• Europe really does want diversification
• LNG can indeed be more expensive
• but the reason is dependency reduction + security policy

The text presents this as a deliberate attack on the population.

👉 A security policy issue becomes:
“multinational profits vs Hungarian families’ utility bills.”

---

🎭 4️⃣ “Brussels + multinationals” = merged enemy image

One of propaganda’s strongest constructions:

actor	how the text portrays them
multinationals	profit-hungry
Brussels	foreign interest
opposition	their people
Fidesz	the only defender

This creates a four-part emotional frame:
👉 external force
👉 money
👉 traitorous insiders
👉 one single protector

This is no longer public policy — it’s a defensive war narrative.

---

🧠 5️⃣ “Said one professional sentence” → “revealing slip”

“we must find a way to phase out Russian gas”

This is a:

• professional
• EU-level
• geopolitical issue

But the text frames it as:

“he let the plan against Hungarians slip out.”

This is attribution of malicious intent.

It doesn’t explain:

• why
• with what alternatives
• over what timeframe

Only this:
👉 “they want to force this on you.”

---

🟢 6️⃣ False contrast: “either them, or cheap energy”

Final message:

• “Orbán Viktor = Europe’s cheapest energy prices”
• “they = expensive LNG, foreign interests”

Two false simplifications:

1. Prices are not determined only by the government
2. LNG is not inherently an “enemy,” but a tool

But the text presents it as if:

professional debate = immediate harm to households

---

⚖️ What is completely missing?

No mention of:

• long-term energy security
• political dependency
• procurement risks
• infrastructure
• contractual constraints
• EU regulations

Only:

“they serve multinationals, we serve Hungarians.”

This is an emotional identity struggle, not an economic debate.

---

🎯 In summary

This text uses four core propaganda techniques:

1️⃣ Professional background = betrayal
2️⃣ Fear-mongering about energy prices
3️⃣ Merging Brussels + multinationals into one enemy
4️⃣ Presenting Fidesz as the sole protector

It does not want to win a factual debate. It wants to create this feeling:

“If they come → your utility bills suffer → foreigners take over → you’re in danger.”

This is pure emotional security propaganda, dressed up as economic policy.

Who loves Budapest?

In the past 15 years, the government has carried out developments worth more than 3,000 billion forints.
Numerous investments affecting healthcare, public education, culture, transport, sports, and infrastructure enrich Budapest and support the people living here — and we’re not stopping here.

Similarly ambitious visions are on the agenda for the next 10 years.
The Southern Railway Circle (Déli Körvasút) is under construction, the suburban rail (HÉV) renovation program is launching, and the renewed Citadel will soon be inaugurated.

In contrast, Gergely Karácsony frightens Budapest residents daily with talk of bankruptcy, misleads everyone with a fictitious budget, stands helplessly when it snows, turns a blind eye to homelessness, and to the catastrophic condition of the capital’s roads.

The facts speak for themselves: Fidesz stands on the side of Budapest.

---

Who truly loves Budapest? Because that’s what we were really talking about.
In my view, the one who constantly cries wolf, misleads Budapest residents, and keeps talking about bankruptcy does not love Budapest. Nor does the one who deceives people with a budget that the Constitutional Court once again says fails to account for a required item, and that the county governor declares unlawful.

I don’t think the one loves Budapest who lets the roads fall apart, who allows people to struggle daily on pothole-filled streets and buses, who doesn’t clear the snow in the capital, who fails to handle the homelessness issue and cowardly backs away from resolving it.

I believe the one who loves Budapest is the one who develops it.
And look at who has developed this city over the past 15 years — it was not the metropolitan municipality. Developments were carried out partly by the districts, thanks to them, and to a very large extent by the government, which has spent 3,000 billion forints in recent years in Budapest.

And many developments are still ongoing, from the Healthy Budapest Program to projects like the Southern Railway Circle, all making everyday life in Budapest more livable and better.

🔴 1️⃣ “Who loves Budapest?” = emotional trap, not a policy debate

Her question is NOT about:

• whether the city’s finances function
• what the capital’s responsibilities are vs. the state’s
• how much money the government has withdrawn
• why there’s no money for daily operations

Instead, she reframes it as a moral category:

“Who loves Budapest?”

👉 If you argue with the government = you don’t love the city.
This is classic moral blackmail.

---

🔴 2️⃣ Deliberate mixing: state investments ≠ city operation

She’s playing tricks with the 3,000 billion forints.

That number includes:

• national railway developments
• tourism projects
• state prestige investments
• central government projects in Budapest

But this money did not go into the city’s budget.
This is NOT money the mayor can spend.

❌ It does NOT pay for:

• snow removal
• road repairs
• public transport operation (BKV)
• street lighting
• social services

👉 She contrasts development money with operational money as if they were the same thing.

---

🔴 3️⃣ “Fictional budget” = political label, not a legal fact

She uses Constitutional Court decisions like this:

“The Constitutional Court has declared…”

This is a rhetorical debate-closing tool, not an explanation.

In reality:

The city includes disputed items in the budget
because the government has pushed it into a forced situation through financial withdrawals (local business tax changes, “solidarity contribution,” etc.).

But she frames it as:

👉 not a financial dispute
👉 but “they are lying and scaremongering”

---

🔴 4️⃣ Urban problems = exclusively the city’s fault

Very important part:

• snow
• potholes
• homelessness

She presents these as if:

• the city had enough money
• the government had not withdrawn resources
• the state had no responsibility in several of these areas

This is the pattern:

1. You bleed the system dry
2. Then blame the operator for the decline

That’s political strategy, not public policy.

---

🔴 5️⃣ “Those who develop the city are the ones who love it” – the key sentence

This is the biggest distortion.

Development:

• is visible
• can be inaugurated
• can be photographed

Operation:

• waste collection
• road maintenance
• snow removal
• social care

This is not spectacular, but it’s expensive and constant.

👉 The government claims the visible projects
👉 while leaving the burden of everyday operation to the city — with less money.

---

🧠 In short, what’s happening in this text?

Real issue	How she frames it
financial withdrawals	“Karácsony is scaremongering”
budget dispute	“fictional numbers”
state investment	“we developed the city”
lack of operational funds	“they don’t clear the snow”
systemic problem	“they don’t love Budapest”

This isn’t city policy.
This is an emotional war narrative.

---

🎯 Short comeback version for comments:

“State prestige investments are not the same as running a city. The 3,000 billion didn’t go into the capital’s budget — you don’t clear snow or fix potholes from that. First you drain the budget, then you blame the consequences on the city. That’s not loving Budapest — that’s political theatre.”