👉 Brussels and Kyiv have decided: Viktor Orbán must be removed because he does not bow to the will of Brussels and Ukraine, but instead defends the interests of the Hungarian people.
That is why Brussels needs Péter Magyar — because he is the one who would not be able to say no to them. The Tisza Party would bring Ukraine into the EU without question and would assist in supporting the war.
🟠 However, we will not allow others to decide about us without us! We represent peace, low energy prices, and Hungarian families. That is why Fidesz is the only safe choice.
Thank you very much. Staying with the more serious topic, there was also a political podcast — I don’t know whether you have seen or heard it, or whether the public has encountered it — and what was particularly outrageous, if that can even be further intensified, beyond what you already mentioned, is that they openly speak about “removing” Viktor Orbán.
When you think about it, they are talking about removing a democratically elected leader — someone who has been given a two-thirds mandate by voters election after election — simply because he does not steer European affairs, and especially Hungarian affairs, in a direction that would be comfortable or convenient for them. That in itself is astonishing.
But they went even further in this podcast: they openly stated that they hope Péter Magyar will help them and act as a partner in ensuring that Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union by 2027.
They admit that this is not something to talk about too much until April, because it would be an important argument in Viktor Orbán’s hands. So once again we see this incredible two-faced, hypocritical, deceptive arrogance: they know exactly what they want to do — they just cannot talk about it before the election. As Tarzoltán said: you have to win the election first, and after that, anything is possible.
What Tarzoltán represents on a small scale here is what Brussels represents on a larger scale in Europe.
🔴 1️⃣ External Control Narrative
📌 Technique: external control framing + sovereignty threat
“Brussels and Kyiv have decided”
“Viktor Orbán must be removed”
👉 Hungarian domestic political competition is framed not as an internal debate, but as a decision imposed by external powers.
The election is thus presented not as a contest between policy programs, but as national self-determination vs. foreign interference.
🔴 2️⃣ Geopolitics Reduced to Personal Actors
📌 Technique: personalization + scapegoating
Complex EU–Ukraine–member state negotiations
→ simplified into the “will of Brussels” and “the will of Kyiv”
👉 A multi-level institutional process is transformed into a moral conflict.
This is emotionally easier to process than a complex, multi-actor decision-making system.
🔴 3️⃣ Proxy Framing
📌 Technique: proxy framing
“Brussels needs Péter Magyar”
“He cannot say no to them”
👉 The opponent is framed not as an autonomous political actor, but as an executor of external interests.
This delegitimizes their independence before any policy debate can begin.
🔴 4️⃣ Fear Chain Construction
📌 Technique: threat stacking
Ukraine’s EU membership
→ war
→ rising energy prices
→ Hungarian families at risk
👉 A linear cause-and-effect chain is constructed, where everything ultimately ties back to the electoral decision.
🔴 5️⃣ Moral Binary Framing
📌 Technique: binary moral framing
“We represent peace, low energy prices, and Hungarian families”
VS.
“They represent war and Brussels’ will”
👉 There is no nuance, no third option.
The decision becomes a moral choice.
🔴 6️⃣ Emphasis on Democratic Legitimacy
📌 Technique: legitimacy reinforcement
“A leader empowered by a two-thirds majority”
👉 Criticism is framed not merely as political disagreement,
but as questioning a democratically granted mandate.
🔴 7️⃣ “Afterwards, everything is possible” – Suggestion of a Hidden Plan
📌 Technique: insinuation + distrust amplification
The narrative suggests:
they do not say it publicly,
but they have already decided it behind the scenes.
👉 This reinforces the perception of a “hidden power plan.”
🎯 In Summary
The structure of the text follows a classic campaign framework:
- External enemy
- Internal proxy
- Existential stakes
- Moral choice
- Safe refuge (“the safe choice”)
This is not a policy debate, but identity- and sovereignty-based mobilization.