After von der Leyen and the TISZA party’s political family, the European People’s Party, destroyed the farmers, Péter thought that the protesting Hungarian farmers would welcome him with joy. That did not happen…
Share this so it reaches Ursula and her circle as well!
Péter believed that after his party, the European People’s Party, destroyed farmers in Brussels, they would then welcome him happily. Well, that’s not what happened. Watch it yourselves. Dr. Zoltán is standing behind me as well. Look how he’s laughing. Listen!
When did they ever stand up for the farmers? We have never seen it. Never seen it! For a year we have been fighting against the Mercosur agreement. I spoke about it multiple times on Kossuth Radio. Zoli and Szandra were listening.
So when did he finally stand here with the farmers? Mr. Áron, thank you very much! Well, for a year now… Hungarian farmers confronted Péter Magyar for the first time in his life. On Kossuth, for the first time…
How are you going to vote in that upcoming vote? How are you going to vote? So you won’t vote against Ford. You won’t vote against Ford. Thank you very much.
These farmers demonstrated against Ford, and you are standing with them. Thank you very much for that help! Thank you!
The Hungarian farmers showed themselves to Péter Magyar for the first time in his life. Thank you very much for that help!
🎯 Core Function (Real Purpose)
The text is not about the situation of farmers, not about public policy, and not about concrete decisions. Instead, it is about:
- manufacturing an enemy image (Brussels → EPP → TISZA → Péter Magyar),
- public shaming and booing presented as “evidence,”
- appropriating collective identity (“Hungarian farmers = us”),
- a political verdict that is decided in advance.
👉 The conclusion is not reached at the end, but fixed at the beginning:
EPP + TISZA = enemies of farmers / Fidesz = protector of farmers
🧩 Actors and Labeling
- Ursula von der Leyen → “the face of Brussels,” an abstract main enemy
- European People’s Party (EPP) → “the party family destroying farmers”
- Péter Magyar → “a naïve, hypocritical, ridiculed figure”
- Kossuth Radio → a legitimizing reference: “we’ve been saying this for a year already”
📌 Important: not a single concrete law, decision, or vote is named.
1️⃣ “The farmers laughed at him” – emotional evidence fabrication
“Look how they’re laughing! Pay attention!”
🔹 Technique: emotional proof + crowd validation
🔹 What it does:
A single, cherry-picked reaction (laughter, booing) is elevated into a political truth.
🔻 Problems:
- Not representative
- Proves nothing about farmers as a whole
- Does not substitute for facts
2️⃣ “He never stood up for farmers” – absolute negation
“We’ve never seen it! Never!”
🔹 Technique: absolute negation
🔹 Effect:
The word “never” shuts down debate and leaves no room for counter-examples.
🔻 Problems:
- No time frame is defined
- Not verifiable
- A deliberate oversimplification
3️⃣ Dropping the Merk–Mazur agreement – borrowed credibility
“We’ve been fighting the Merk–Mazur agreement for a year…”
🔹 Technique: issue hijacking
🔹 What it does:
Uses a complex, poorly understood issue to reinforce the narrative:
“we have long been fighting for farmers.”
🔻 Problems:
- The agreement itself is not explained
- No concrete actions are specified
- It functions purely as an identity signal
4️⃣ “This is the first time farmers have met Péter Magyar”
🔹 Technique: delegitimization by novelty
🔹 Message:
“Anyone who wasn’t here before is an outsider.”
🔻 Real purpose:
Exclusion from the “national community.”
5️⃣ Questions that are not questions
“How are you going to vote?”
🔹 Technique: forced binary
🔹 Effect:
The listener is made to feel that only one answer is acceptable.
🧠 Overall Picture – Why Is This Dangerous?
This text:
- does not debate, it mocks,
- does not prove, it manufactures mood,
- does not represent, it excludes,
- does not solve, it demands loyalty.
🧩 One-Sentence Summary
This is not about protecting farmers, but about emotionally exploiting farmers for political confrontation.