The European People’s Party—Tisza’s European party family—supports the Mercosur agreement, which is dangerous for Hungarian farmers as well. Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party, has now said that they fully support the Mercosur agreement. This is, of course, the trade agreement the EU concluded with South America, and one that European farmers—including Hungarian farmers—are strongly protesting against. And yes, this is the same party family that supports Ukraine’s accelerated accession to the EU, the same party family that is currently the biggest warmonger in Europe, and of course the same party family of which the Tisza Party is a member under the leadership of Magyar Péter. Uncomfortable—and dangerous.
🎯 Core Function (real purpose)
The text is not a professional, legal, or economic analysis of the Mercosur agreement, but rather:
- enemy-chain construction
(European People’s Party → Mercosur → Ukraine → “war” → Tisza Party → Péter Magyar), - fear-mongering (“dangerous,” “unpleasant”),
- pre-emptive moral judgment,
- transfer of guilt based on political affiliation.
👉 The conclusion is not reached at the end; it is assumed from the outset:
EPP = danger → Tisza = danger → Péter Magyar = danger
1️⃣ “Us” versus “Them” – appropriation of collective identity
“…which European farmers, including Hungarian farmers, strongly oppose”
🔹 Technique: false consensus + identity capture
🔹 What it does:
- “Farmers” are presented as a single, homogeneous bloc.
- Anyone who disagrees is automatically framed as “not a real farmer” or “anti-farmer.”
🔻 What’s missing:
No data, no organizations, no references indicating which farmers, in what proportion, and in what form they are protesting.
2️⃣ Guilt by association
“the same party… the same party… the same party…”
🔹 Technique: association stacking
🔹 How it works:
- Distinct issues (Mercosur, Ukraine, war) are deliberately merged.
- The common denominator is not policy, but a political label.
👉 Logical leap:
- Mercosur ≠ Ukraine
- Ukraine ≠ war
- War ≠ Péter Magyar
Yet they are fused into a single chain.
3️⃣ Demonized actor – personalization
“Manfred Weber now says…”
🔹 Technique: villain personalization
🔹 Role:
Manfred Weber becomes the “face of Brussels,”
onto whom all perceived threats can be projected.
🔻 The trick:
A complex, multi-level EU decision-making process is reduced to one individual.
4️⃣ “War monger” – emotional overload
“the biggest war agitator currently in Europe”
🔹 Technique: emotional labeling
🔹 Effect:
- The debate is transformed into a moral panic.
- Anyone who disagrees is implicitly framed as “pro-war.”
🔻 What’s missing:
No definition, no concrete action, no specific decision cited — only a label.
5️⃣ Pre-sealed verdict (“dangerous”)
“Unpleasant, and something dangerous.”
🔹 Technique: vague threat framing
🔹 Why it works:
- It never explains what is dangerous.
- The reader is left to fill in the fear themselves.
This is the classic “you feel it, right?” propaganda ending.
🧩 Summary – what is actually happening?
This text:
- ❌ does not analyze the Mercosur agreement,
- ❌ presents no economic data,
- ❌ fails to separate distinct EU-level issues,
✔️ but instead produces one single political message:
Anyone who is not with us is a danger.
This is not information — it is a loyalty test, enforced through emotional pressure.