I’ve noticed something strange. So we are being branded as “pedo-Fidesz,” even though everyone who had anything to do with, for example, the pardon scandal resigned from their positions and withdrew from public life—most of them without even being pressured to do so. They did this partly because they themselves acknowledged their “guilt,” and partly because we on the right also made it clear in countless writings why the case was unacceptable and why everyone who granted clemency to a man who was not himself a pedophile but assisted the crimes of a pedophile must bear responsibility. According to the uninformed, we are the “pedo-Fidesz” ones because under the Orbán government Gábor Kaleta—who had been made a diplomat under the previous administration—was exposed, and he received a shockingly light sentence from judges who otherwise protest against the government and of whom quite a few were caught having downloaded the Tisza app. Isn’t that strange? We are being called “pedo-Fidesz” by people who didn’t even blink when we reported that adult men, dressed up as women in grotesque makeup, are already presenting themselves to children in kindergartens abroad. We spoke out against this as well; you stayed silent. Now I read that, according to Magyar Peti, the authorities never even declared that Márk Lakatos had abused a 13-year-old child at the time. That, however, is a blatant lie. Magyar Peti’s sect calls us “pedo-Fidesz,” while it has been established that one of “Uncle” Ervin Nagy’s closest friends abused a 13-year-old child. No matter how much anyone lies about it, there is documentation of this. No one has distanced themselves from that friend, and the “child-protection” influencers are still silent. Then along comes the great, brave DPK “questioner,” who asks Orbán and Lázár why they don’t protect every single child on Earth, and when the minister and the prime minister explain point by point that they cannot prevent every crime but they can punish them, the “brave warrior” suddenly goes deaf and no longer hears the answer. The fact is that there are figures and statistics showing how many proven pedophile offenders have been sent to prison since 2010, and this is because they are now actually being caught and punished. They may not receive life sentences, but once these parasites are released, alongside the public pedophile registry we wish them “good luck” integrating back into society. So I don’t know who the pedophile-apologists are: those who put actual offenders behind bars and hold accountable those connected to such crimes, or those who are unwilling even to name the crimes of a specific, proven pedophile because he happens to be their activist at the moment. And as for those who see pedophile crimes behind every bush, I recommend a psychologist. This is not a party-political or campaign topic. A normal person condemns such crimes, supports having the police investigate every case and the courts pass judgment, rather than using it as a comment-storm weapon simply because they dislike the opinion they’ve read.
(As for L. Márk, the fact that such crimes could be subject to the statute of limitations is disgustingly outrageous. Unfortunately, laws cannot be changed retroactively, but at least as of the summer of 2024 it has been fixed in law that sexual crimes committed against minors never expire.)
The text is a classic, multi-layered piece of propaganda, even though it superficially appeals to “facts” and “moral outrage.” Below is a structured evaluation from rhetorical and logical perspectives.
1️⃣ Core framing: victimhood + counterattack
The fundamental claim of the entire text is this:
“We are being baselessly labeled as ‘pedo-Fidesz,’ while in fact we are the real protectors of children.”
This does not examine whether the criticism is justified; instead, it starts with moral self-exoneration.
This is a typical propaganda opening: it does not clarify the issue, it defends identity.
2️⃣ Deliberate conflation of concepts (a classic trick)
The text constantly conflates:
- political responsibility
- criminal liability
- moral responsibility
Example:
“They resigned, they admitted their guilt.”
👉 Resignation ≠ legal accountability
👉 “Admission” ≠ a court verdict
This is a rhetorical maneuver designed to suggest that the system is functioning properly, while in reality it was the system itself that produced the scandal.
3️⃣ Selective shifting of blame (judges, “the left,” apps)
This is one of the most serious manipulations:
“They received light sentences from judges who protest and downloaded the Tisza app.”
❌ Unproven connections
❌ Scapegoating
❌ Delegitimization of the justice system
This is dangerous propaganda because it:
- undermines trust in the rule of law,
- attempts to interpret judicial decisions through political loyalty.
4️⃣ Classic “whataboutism” (deflection)
Whenever the text should address concrete cases, it shifts the topic:
- “abroad, makeup-wearing men in kindergartens”
- “but others did worse”
- “you stayed silent”
👉 Completely unrelated to the Hungarian cases in question
👉 Emotional panic-mongering, not fact-finding
This is a core pattern of Russian–Hungarian propaganda:
if you can’t defend the issue → drag the debate into moral mud-slinging.
5️⃣ Double standards — revealing by their own logic
One key sentence stands out:
“There was no final court ruling.”
Then, just a few lines later:
“There is paperwork proving it.”
❗ From the same author:
- at one moment, only a final verdict is acceptable;
- at another, a mere “document” is sufficient.
This internal contradiction is typical of propaganda:
👉 the standard depends entirely on who is being accused.
6️⃣ Dehumanizing language (deliberate emotional overload)
Words used:
- “animal”
- “vermin”
- “disgusting”
- “needs a psychologist”
This language:
- shuts down debate,
- forces emotional reactions,
- blocks sober analysis.
The goal is not truth, but tribal identification.
7️⃣ False concluding dilemma
The ending presents a false binary:
“Who are the pedophile apologists? Us, who put them in prison, or them?”
This is a logical distortion, because:
- the criticism is not against punishment,
- it is against the political whitewashing of responsibility.
The two do not exclude each other.
8️⃣ The only true statement — and even that is incidental
At the end, this claim is correct:
“Sexual crimes against minors do not expire under the statute of limitations.”
✔️ Factually true
❌ But it does not absolve the handling of past cases
❌ And it does not answer the pardon scandal
Summary — in one sentence
This is not a text about child protection; it is political identity defense built on panic-mongering, deflection, and double standards.
The goal is:
- not truth,
- not the victims,
- but the preservation of the “us vs. them” narrative.
kötelező sorkatonaság,
Mark Rutte szerint:
