We see through the sieve — and through Tisza as well!
At the General Assembly, we confronted the representatives of Péter Magyar.
The Hungarian left, at every turn, seeks to pledge loyalty to their bosses in Brussels. Wearing Ukrainian T-shirts, they supported Manfred Weber and Ursula von der Leyen, who have now been consumed by war hysteria for five years.
With an EU breastplate, they would send soldiers to Ukraine and call all of Europe into battle. Yet they are also the ones who do not dare to say a single word about the shutdown of the Druzhba oil pipeline.
Péter Magyar and his allies refuse to stand up for the low utility prices that protect Hungarian families, but banks and multinational corporations can always count on them — because they are incapable of saying no.
Sitting across from us is Andrea Bujdosó, who earned millions during the war from more than 12,000 Shell employee shares. Gerzsenyi Gabriella and Kinga Kollár are also here — yesterday they did not utter a single word in defense of the Hungarian people. That is the Brussels path.
Before and after April, the national government will remain on the Hungarian path.
We will stay out of the war and protect Hungarian interests — which is why Fidesz is the sure choice.
There are regularly statements — including yesterday in the European Parliament — where your representatives, Members of the European Parliament Kinga Kollár and Gabriella Gerzsenyi, sit there with sealed lips and do not utter a single word in defense of Hungarian interests. Statements are made by your party leader, Manfred Weber, saying that his dream is for European-uniformed soldiers to march into Ukraine. The day before yesterday, he also said that he hopes men and women from every European country will voluntarily enlist as soldiers to march into Ukraine. You support this.
And by supporting this, you also support making Hungarian families’ livelihoods impossible, bringing about 1,000-forint fuel prices. Because you also support cutting ourselves off from predictable and affordable Russian energy.
You do not raise your voice even when Ukraine — despite the humanitarian assistance it has received from Hungary over the past four years — openly blackmails Hungary and fails to restore oil deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline. At such times, you remain silent. Your party leader does not even open his mouth. Not a single word.
This proves which side you are on.
You may think Hungarians are foolish — but they are not. Hungarians clearly see through the sieve, through Tisza, and through you as well. They see that you do not represent Hungarian interests in Brussels or anywhere in the world, but instead represent Brussels’ interests in Hungary — and that is what you are preparing for if you receive authorization after April 12.
Hungarians know exactly who stands by them, who represents Hungarian interests, who wants this country to remain safe, and who wants Hungarian money to stay in Hungary. And they also know that you are the ones who cannot — and do not want to — say no to Brussels. You are the ones who would represent Brussels’ priorities in Hungary.
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis – “National Path vs. Brussels War Bloc” Narrative
Actors: Magyar Péter, Manfred Weber, Ursula von der Leyen
Party: Fidesz
Energy element: Druzhba (Friendship) oil pipeline
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ Betrayal–Loyalty Framing – “Brussels’ people vs. Hungarian interests”
📌 Technique:
- Binary division: “Hungarian path” vs. “Brussels path”
- Moral labeling: “they dare not speak,” “they remain silent,” “they cannot say no”
- External control narrative: “Brussels bosses”
🎯 Goal:
To transform a policy debate (energy, foreign affairs) into a question of loyalty:
“Who stands with the Hungarian people, and who serves foreign interests?”
💥 Effect:
The audience does not weigh specific policy measures but makes an identity-based decision.
2️⃣ War Fear Framing – “European soldiers in Ukraine”
📌 Technique:
- Projected future threat (“European uniformed soldiers marching into Ukraine”)
- Dramatization of voluntary recruitment
- Vision of Europe-wide military involvement
🎯 Goal:
To generate existential fear:
“This is about our children.”
💥 Effect:
The debate shifts onto a moral and emotional plane — simplified into a peace vs. war dilemma.
3️⃣ Energy Security & Cost-of-Living Panic – “1,000-forint fuel”
📌 Technique:
- Concrete, shocking price figure (“1,000-forint petrol”)
- Cheap Russian energy vs. decoupling
- The Druzhba pipeline as a symbolic anchor
🎯 Goal:
To reframe a geopolitical issue as a direct household livelihood threat.
💥 Effect:
Voters perceive not a foreign policy decision, but a danger to their own wallets.
4️⃣ Personalization & Moralization – Dramatizing Individual Responsibility
📌 Technique:
- Naming specific individuals
- Accusations of silence or inaction
- Activation of moral outrage
🎯 Goal:
To portray the opponent not as an institutional rival, but as a personal betrayer.
💥 Effect:
Strong emotional polarization and intensified personal resentment.
5️⃣ “We Will Not Give In” – Assumption of the Protector Role
📌 Technique:
- Strong, short declarative statements
- Protective identity (“we defend Hungarian interests”)
- Promise of stability before and after the election
🎯 Goal:
To position the government as a security guarantee.
💥 Effect:
The election is framed not as a program choice, but as a security decision.
🧩 Overall Picture
This text employs classic:
- Enemy image framing (external adversary: Brussels)
- Loyalty-test narrative
- War-related fear framing
- Cost-of-living panic mobilization
- Personal moral delegitimization
The core message is not policy-based, but identity-based:
“We are the Hungarian side. They are Brussels’ side.”