☝️The story told by Péter Magyar and the pro-Ukrainian propagandists about the “hero investigator” — and about the evil state trying to destroy Tisza using the secret services — has collapsed.

What nonsense❗️

The hearing of the Tisza Party’s IT specialist is now public! In the declassified recording, he himself admits that he was recruited by Ukrainians and prepared for future operations supporting Ukraine.

Hungarian counterintelligence was right to take action in this case! (No matter what the Tisza Party’s “hero police officer” claims — partly out of ignorance, partly for political reasons.)

❗️The situation is NOT complicated:

🇺🇦 Ukraine wants to bring down the Orbán government because Hungary does not support the war, does not supply weapons, does not provide money, and is blocking Ukraine’s EU accession.
People connected to Volodymyr Zelenskyy are willing to do anything to replace Viktor Orbán. That is why their agents have also infiltrated the Tisza Party!

🇭🇺 For us, only one thing matters: protecting Hungary’s peace and security!

👉 Balázska’s narrative:

“Ukraine recruited him”
“Tisza = infiltrated by agents”
“clear espionage case”
“the state acted correctly”

👉 What actually emerges from the transcript:

he does not know who the contact was
he received no concrete task against Hungary
he carried out defensive IT activities
he himself is uncertain and only later becomes suspicious
the interrogation is strongly leading/suggestive

👉 🔥 Core point:
➡️ Balázska turns an uncertain, conditional story
➡️ into a clear-cut espionage case

🔍 Manipulation Techniques (detailed)

1️⃣ “He admitted it” = false certainty framing

👉 Balázska:
“he himself admits that the Ukrainians RECRUITED him”

👉 Reality (transcript):

“I didn’t see any sign of that”
“they didn’t ask for state secrets”
“I can’t decide”
“it became suspicious afterwards”

👉 Technique:

uncertain statements → turned into categorical admission

👉 Goal:
👉 don’t think → “case closed”

👉 Effect:
👉 creates false evidence

2️⃣ Speculation → presented as fact

👉 Transcript:

“it came up that it might not be Hungarian”
“it could be foreign”
“we don’t know”

👉 Balázska:
👉 “the Ukrainians recruited him”

👉 Technique:

“might be” → “certain”
“we don’t know” → “clear”

👉 Goal:
👉 simplify the narrative

👉 Effect:
👉 shuts down critical thinking

3️⃣ Removal of interrogation pressure (context removal)

👉 From the transcript:

strong suggestion (“this could be espionage”)
legal pressure (“Criminal Code, reporting obligation”)
leading questions

👉 Technique:

removing context
highlighting only “suspicious” elements

👉 Goal:
👉 make the “confession” seem credible

👉 Effect:
👉 distorted perception of reality

4️⃣ Enemy construction (enemy framing)

👉 Balázska:

“Ukrainians”
“Zelenskyy’s people”
“they infiltrated”

👉 Transcript:

no concrete evidence of Ukrainian state involvement
anonymous online environment

👉 Technique:

complex situation → reduced to a single enemy

👉 Goal:
👉 trigger emotional reaction

👉 Effect:
👉 fear + distrust

5️⃣ Guilt by association

👉 Balázska:
👉 “they infiltrated the Tisza Party”

👉 Transcript:

one individual
partly amateur, personal activity

👉 Technique:

one case → entire organization

👉 Goal:
👉 political discrediting

👉 Effect:
👉 sense of collective guilt

6️⃣ Reframing defensive activity as offensive

👉 Transcript:

“defensive operations”
“against Russian cyberattacks”
“I did not participate in attacks”

👉 Balázska:
👉 “actions helping Ukraine”

👉 Technique:

neutral/defensive → portrayed as hostile

👉 Goal:
👉 trigger moral rejection

👉 Effect:
👉 distorted moral perception

7️⃣ Conspiracy framing

👉 Balázska:

Ukraine → overthrowing the government
intelligence infiltration
election interference

👉 Transcript:

no such evidence

👉 Technique:

loosely connected elements
constructing a grand narrative

👉 Goal:
👉 “everything fits together”

👉 Effect:
👉 paranoid worldview

8️⃣ Oversimplification

👉 Balázska:
👉 “The situation is NOT complicated”

👉 Reality:

multiple countries
anonymous networks
uncertain actors
IT communities

👉 Technique:

removing complexity

👉 Goal:
👉 fast emotional decision

👉 Effect:
👉 illusion of clarity

9️⃣ Protector framing

👉 Balázska:
👉 “we will protect Hungary”

👉 Technique:

threat + protection pairing

👉 Goal:
👉 legitimize power

👉 Effect:
👉 security vs. enemy mindset

⚖️ Reality vs. Narrative (brief)

Reality (transcript)	Balázska’s claim
uncertain	certain
no evidence	clear case
individual story	organized network
defensive IT	offensive action
anonymous contact	Ukrainian intelligence

🧨 Conclusion

👉 This is a classic case where:

an unclear, uncertain, partly naive story →
becomes a political weapon

👉 The main trick:

removing uncertainty
defining a clear enemy
building an emotional narrative

👉 Final effect:
➡️ perception of a “spy case”
➡️ political mobilization
➡️ fear generation

So this person contacted you — this… let’s call them “V” for convenience.

You discussed this with your… well, your “smart” friends, and you concluded that this could be nothing other than the filthy Hungarian intelligence services, or some shadow of them.

Since your IT device was seized, these conversations are available. I’m revealing a big secret here.

So let me ask you: in your opinion, would a real Hungarian person phrase things like
“I wouldn’t mind if we could do a bit of ‘antlering’ with him”?

Would a real person phrase things like:
“a network element, under all circumstances, must be protected as it has strategic importance within the cycle”?

Did you try putting this into Google Translate?

Answer:
“These questions also seemed strange to me, but I didn’t think that…”

“In my view, either this text was not written by a real person, or the person didn’t know Hungarian.”

“Yes, that possibility did come up. We talked about it.”

“You can say ‘bajuszt akasztani’ (to pick a fight), but ‘agancsoskodni’?”

“Yes, this question came up for us too — why the wording was so strange. It also happened that the same message was sent multiple times. So the idea came up that maybe this wasn’t a Hungarian, or not someone speaking natural Hungarian.”

“And still no one thought this should be reported to Hungarian authorities?”

“These messages came through a messaging app, right?”

“Yes.”

“They are typed with perfect grammar, proper punctuation, every word fully written out — commas, periods, everything in place. Does a real person communicate like this in chat?”

“Not necessarily. Also, there were often long delays between replies.”

“So doesn’t that further suggest that there might be some foreign interest behind this?”

“You are a politically aware person, and it’s not only the current government that has an interest in the Tisza Party not winning the elections. There are other countries that also have such interests, right?”

“Yes, that also came up. But we didn’t report it because we thought it might not help us — there’s a chance the services themselves are involved.”

“That’s why we didn’t talk much about it being a foreign state either — we couldn’t really see further. We don’t have infinite resources. We were just two IT guys discussing this. We’re not professionals who can determine whether this is Hungarian or foreign.”

“I can’t decide that. I can’t say for sure.”

“Do you see any national security relevance in this case?”

“Yes, I do. But I can’t determine whether it’s internal or external.”

“That’s not your job anyway.”

“If you could determine that, the whole system wouldn’t even be necessary.”

“Then it would be enough to ask Gandalf.”

“I’m listing things that should have raised suspicion if you had thought about this even for a second.”

“And from this point: does this ‘V’ have anything to do with the person who traveled here?”

“Well, maybe only in connection with a meeting he wanted to arrange…”

“So was this person used to find or arrange that meeting?”

“No. He wasn’t our ally. I only pretended to be his ‘puppet’ as he described it — but that was just preparation, so that if a meeting happened, we would have some kind of security or self-protection measure.”

“You never received any tools or equipment from him?”

“No.”

“Nothing like ‘go to a locker and pick something up’?”

“No. We never received anything, and we never met him in person.”

“So we are at the point where we have no idea who he is. Did you try to identify him?”

“You are an IT professional. What platform did he use?”

“Well, it was Session. It works somewhat like Tor. With my knowledge and resources, it’s very hard to trace. If it had been Signal, maybe it would have been possible.”

“There was a discussion about identifying him — an IP address was collected, but I’m not sure it leads anywhere.”

“This doesn’t sound good. Let me explain why.”

“There is a criminal offense called espionage. There is also an obligation to report it. Failure to do so is itself a crime.”

“Espionage is taken very seriously by law. Even preparation — like agreeing, offering, or attempting — is punishable.”

“So even saying ‘yes, I’ll cooperate and get data’ can qualify as preparation.”

“I told you, I didn’t spy for the Tisza Party.”

“Espionage is not about acting against a party, but against Hungary.”

“Tisza Party is part of Hungary.”

“I was gathering intelligence related to the Tisza Party.”

“That’s why I asked how familiar you are with criminal law.”

“Yes, thank you for explaining. We found these message exchanges as screenshots. Everything was documented and known within the Tisza Party leadership.”

“But not reported to authorities.”

“Reporting means informing investigative authorities or intelligence services.”

“Our law allows us to refrain from reporting if we can clarify the situation ourselves.”

“I just want you to understand this is more serious than you might have thought.”