It is shocking to see the level of hostility already driving the left. Together with Csilla Fazekas, we have heard several such stories; most recently, a man told us that even while commuting, he overheard passengers saying, “Why hasn’t Viktor Orbán been shot yet?”
It is unacceptable that public discourse has sunk to this level, and the hateful rhetoric of Péter Magyar has also set an example for this.
Let us remain calm and not be intimidated by this outrage. We stand with Viktor Orbán, a stable and composed leader who is capable of saying no to any foreign interference in order to protect Hungarian interests. Fidesz is the only safe choice!
I was on my way home on the suburban railway (HÉV), and I heard two women—just ordinary people—talking about why Viktor Orbán hasn’t been shot yet. I heard it with my own ears. So this isn’t some kind of conspiracy theory. I was truly shocked hearing this from our own side. That’s not what I ever wanted to say. That they should shoot Péter Magyar, or… Yes, yes. I would never say anything like that, no matter what kind of opposition content I watch.
👉 Main narrative:
- “opposition = hatred, violence”
- “public discourse = has reached a dangerous level”
- “Fidesz = calm, stability, protection”
- “election = order vs. chaos”
👉 Hidden formula:
anecdote + shock + generalization + scapegoating + reassuring closure
→ “fear → then choose safety”
🔍 What is actually happening here?
1️⃣ Anecdotal “evidence” (anecdotal evidence)
👉 Excerpt:
“two women on the HÉV were talking about why Orbán Viktor hasn’t been shot yet”
👉 Technique:
- a single story = presented as a general phenomenon
- no evidence, no context
- “I heard it with my own ears” → illusion of credibility
👉 Goal:
➡️ make it seem like this is a widespread attitude
➡️ personal experience → stronger than data
👉 Reality:
➡️ an isolated case (if it’s even true)
➡️ says nothing about society as a whole
2️⃣ Shock framing (violent imagery)
👉 Excerpt:
“why hasn’t Orbán Viktor been shot”
👉 Technique:
- extreme, taboo-breaking statement
- triggers immediate emotional reaction (shock, fear)
👉 Goal:
➡️ disrupt rational thinking
➡️ push the audience into an emotional state
👉 Effect:
➡️ you don’t analyze → you react
3️⃣ Overgeneralization
👉 Excerpt:
“this is the kind of anger driving the left”
👉 Technique:
- 2 people → entire “left”
- whole political side lumped together
👉 Goal:
➡️ create a sense of collective guilt
➡️ “they are all like this”
👉 Reality:
➡️ logical leap
➡️ no representativeness
4️⃣ Scapegoating
👉 Excerpt:
“Magyar Péter’s hateful tone also set the example for this”
👉 Technique:
- naming a specific person as the cause
- indirectly assigning responsibility for an extreme statement
👉 Goal:
➡️ simple cause-effect: “this is because of him”
➡️ demonize a political opponent
👉 Reality:
➡️ no proven connection
➡️ narrative linkage
5️⃣ Moral panic
👉 Excerpt:
“it is unacceptable that public discourse has sunk to this level”
👉 Technique:
- framing social decline
- “we are in danger” atmosphere
👉 Goal:
➡️ increase tension
➡️ create urgency (“something must be done”)
6️⃣ Protector framing
👉 Excerpt:
“Orbán Viktor is a stable, calm leader…”
👉 Technique:
- contrast: chaos vs. order
- leader = protection
👉 Goal:
➡️ create emotional sense of safety
➡️ “he will protect us”
7️⃣ False dilemma
👉 Hidden message:
- either Fidesz → safety
- or opposition → hatred + violence
👉 Technique:
- no middle ground
- simplified choice
👉 Goal:
➡️ force a decision
➡️ reduce uncertainty
⚙️ The full mechanism
- Shock (violent statement)
- Personal story (illusion of credibility)
- Expansion (→ “the left is like this”)
- Enemy assignment (Magyar Péter)
- Fear building (public discourse is collapsing)
- Offering a solution (Orbán = stability)
👉 This is a classic:
“problem → fear → solution = vote for us” model
🧩 In short
This text:
- does not prove
- does not analyze
- but manufactures an emotional state
👉 goal:
➡️ fear + outrage + desire for safety
👉 end result:
➡️ strengthening political loyalty