1️⃣ War Fear as an Overriding Narrative
The overwhelming majority of interviewees speak with strong fear about an “imminent war,” despite being unable to name any concrete or identifiable war scenario.
The fear is not built on events, but on communication panels:
- “Brussels would drag us into war”
- “Our children would be conscripted”
- “Orbán Viktor will protect us”
Several interviewees openly admit that they cannot say who would attack whom, how, or when.
👉 War functions as an abstract threat, not as a real situational assessment.
2️⃣ Orbán Viktor as a “Protective Figure”
Orbán Viktor’s role is not framed in policy terms, but in paternalistic–protective language:
- “We won’t be cannon fodder”
- “He stopped it”
- “There is no war – this is peace”
Even those who speak about serious material difficulties (insufficient pensions, utility costs) ultimately express 100% satisfaction with him.
👉 Loyalty is not performance-based, but emotional and fear-based.
3️⃣ Economic Conditions: Acknowledged as Bad, Yet Accepted
Recurring patterns include:
- “We are not living better”
- “The pension is not enough”
- “It could have been more”
Yet these acknowledgements do not lead to conclusions or political demands.
👉 Deprivation is normalized, and responsibility is blurred (“Brussels,” “the war,” “the world”).
4️⃣ The Emergence of the Tisza Party: Rejection Without Content
Regarding the Tisza Party:
- Many cannot say what the party does or what it wants
- Yet still describe it as:
- “Dangerous”
- “Would take us to war”
- “A servant of Brussels”
Notably:
➡️ Several interviewees are standing in line at the Tisza Party’s food distribution, while politically rejecting the party.
👉 Cognitive dissonance: help is accepted, political narrative is rejected.
5️⃣ The Myth of an American “Financial Shield”
One claim appears about an American financial shield that would protect Hungary in the event of an external attack.
- No specifics
- No institutional framework
- No legal interpretation
👉 It appears as belief, not as a verifiable fact.
6️⃣ Overall Picture
Based on the interviews conducted at the rally:
Political decisions are not based on rational evaluation, but on:
- fear,
- loyalty,
- identity.
“Peace” is not a condition, but a slogan.
Real-life circumstances (poverty, housing, pensions) do not challenge political loyalty.