Destroying takes only a moment, while building requires years of work — yet only the latter moves us forward. From the perspective of sixteen years, it is easy to forget where we started, and we tend to treat our achievements as if they were natural givens. But nothing is self-evident: with a single bad decision, we could put at risk a decade and a half of shared effort, development, and hard-won security. We must not allow momentary forgetfulness to destroy everything we have created over such a long time, through difficulty and sacrifice.
(In the video)
After sixteen years, you can no longer imagine that something you’ve grown used to might no longer exist. It is very difficult to ask people to imagine something that is absent — how do you even do that? Young people, in particular, are in a very difficult position. I would very much like it not to be the case that people have to experience it on their own skin — that sudden realization of “damn, so this really can disappear,” something we currently take for granted — because four years later we won’t be able to return to the same point.
It’s not complicated to understand: building a sandcastle and kicking one over do not take the same amount of time. And to give up four years of our lives now, only to then spend eight to ten years struggling just to get back to where we would already be in 2026 and could continue moving forward from — that, in my view, is extremely irresponsible.
I understand that this is hard for those who feel that sixteen years was already too long, and who simply want change for the sake of change itself. Not necessarily because they believe things will be better — but because they want to “see what it’s like.” The problem is that this is an enormous risk.
Szentkirályi Alexandra – Propaganda Analysis
The quoted text and the video statement are a textbook example of status quo propaganda, which operates not through arguments but through fear, uncertainty, and emotional pressure. Below is a point-by-point breakdown of the techniques used.
1️⃣ “Destroying is easy, building is hard” – false simplification
- A classic false analogy (the sandcastle metaphor).
- Political decision-making is not a one-way process of destruction → construction.
- Change is automatically framed as “destruction,” without evidence.
🎯 Goal: to construct moral superiority for the government side (“we are the builders”).
2️⃣ “Sixteen years of work would be wasted” – emotional blackmail
- The sunk cost fallacy.
- Past investments are used to argue that changing direction is forbidden.
- It never examines whether those sixteen years were spent in the right direction.
🎯 Goal: to induce guilt in those who want change.
3️⃣ “Young people can’t even imagine what would be lost” – paternalism
- Patronizing young people as inexperienced and unable to grasp risk.
- The “older, wiser authority” claims to know what is best.
🎯 Goal: generational division and reinforcement of uncritical obedience.
4️⃣ “If we change now, we’ll spend 8–10 years just clawing back” – fear-mongering
- A completely data-free prediction.
- An apocalyptic scenario: one decision equals a decade of chaos.
🎯 Goal: to create paralyzing uncertainty.
5️⃣ “They only want change for the sake of change” – delegitimization
- Government critics are portrayed as irrational and irresponsible.
- Real motivations are ignored: corruption, institutional decay, impoverishment, rule-of-law problems.
🎯 Goal: to discredit the motivations of opposition voters.
6️⃣ What’s missing: NOTHING concrete
❌ No:
- measurable results,
- data,
- comparisons,
- detailed vision for the future.
✔️ Instead, there is:
- emotion,
- fear,
- risk rhetoric,
- a loyalty test.
🔴 Conclusion
This statement does not inform — it demands conditional obedience:
“It may not be good, but you’re used to it — and you should fear that anything else would be worse.”
This is not governance. It is power-preserving propaganda built on uncertainty.
This is the “let’s cry together now, before we lose it” type of propaganda — just without the flag and the violin.
In short, what is actually happening:
- It forces people to mourn something in advance, before anything has even happened.
- It tries to create an emotional attachment to an abstract “state of being.”
- It doesn’t make the absence of a person feel tragic — it tries to make habit itself lovable.
“You’ll miss it, you’ll see”
— while never saying what exactly you are supposed to miss.
From a psychological standpoint, this is clearly:
- 🔹 anticipatory loss (projected loss)
- 🔹 learned dependency (habit = safety)
- 🔹 a deliberate inflation of status quo bias
The twist is that it’s not really trying to convince you.
It’s aimed at the person who is:
- tired,
- unwilling to decide,
- afraid of making the wrong choice.
The core message is this:
“Don’t think. Just stay.”
So relax 😏
If there’s anything worth shedding tears over,
it’s the fact that after sixteen years, this is all that’s left to say.