Thank you. Hi, hello! I’ll comment on the post! I usually do, because… I recommend that you watch the latest video as well. Yes? Alright, let’s take a look.
András writes that it simply doesn’t make sense: we are members of the European Union, Ukraine is not, so on what basis does it receive support at all? Those who are members, their issues should be resolved, because peace is better.
So András is questioning on what grounds we, the European member states, are giving Ukraine—especially a country at war—the money of European citizens. I think European citizens themselves would also be very interested in the answer to this question.
However, this answer never arrives from Brussels, because in Brussels, and in countries led in this Brussels-style way, they don’t like asking people what they actually want: whether they want migrants, whether they want to go to war, whether they want to give money to a war. Because then answers might be born like the one revealed recently in a survey—that European citizens do not support sending soldiers and weapons to Ukraine at all.
So I very much understand this argument.
🎭 What is really happening in this statement?
1️⃣ “We are the only ones” – false exceptionalism
“Viktor Orbán’s government is the only one in Europe…”
This is classic exceptionalism.
It doesn’t prove anything—it simply declares that we are better than everyone else.
👉 Its function:
- to create moral superiority,
- to pre-empt criticism (“if no one else does this, then they must be worse”).
2️⃣ “We asked the people” – façade democracy
The so-called “national petition” is not a referendum,
has no legal consequences,
and contains no verifiable, neutral questions.
👉 Rhetorical trick:
- it labels a one-way political campaign as democracy,
- while offering no real decision-making power.
This is emotional validation, not a rule-of-law mechanism.
3️⃣ “Brussels doesn’t ask” – straw man
“In Brussels they don’t like asking people.”
Here, “Brussels” is not an institution but an enemy figure.
👉 What this does:
- it reduces a complex, multi-actor decision-making system to a single villain,
- so there’s no need to explain data, treaties, or legal grounds.
4️⃣ The money-number magic: “800 + 700 billion”
There is no context:
- over what time period,
- from which sources,
- under what legal framework,
- whether it’s refundable,
- whether it’s national or joint funding.
👉 The number is not information—it’s shock value.
5️⃣ “Golden toilets” – anger activation
“Flushing our future down golden toilets.”
This is visual rage-bait:
- luxury = corruption,
- Ukraine/Brussels = thieves,
- you = the victim.
👉 At this point, there is no debate—only emotional mobilization.
6️⃣ Quoting a comment (“András”) – fake dialogue
A single comment is highlighted,
one that says exactly what the narrator wants.
👉 This is the theatre of “the people’s voice”:
- no counterarguments,
- no debate,
- only reinforcement.
7️⃣ “According to surveys” – source-free validation
“It turned out that European citizens do not support…”
❗️ There is no:
- research institute,
- methodology,
- date.
👉 This is an appeal to authority without data.
🧠 In summary – what is the REAL function?
This text is not about informing people about Ukraine, the EU, or money.
🎯 The real goal:
- to deepen the us vs. them divide,
- to trigger anger and fear,
- to shut down critical thinking with the claim:
“we asked the people, they didn’t.”
This is identity-reinforcing propaganda, not political debate.