👉 Living in Hungary today is much safer than in Western Europe, as there is no wave of migrants here, no terrorism, and we can live in peace.
The contrast was experienced firsthand by Szilvia’s children, who studied abroad—one in Amsterdam and two in Manchester. The latter two both witnessed terrorist attacks.
🟠 As long as there is a national government, Hungary will not become a country of migrants, and we can live in safety.
That is why Fidesz is the only safe choice!
They were there during two terrorist attacks. Okay. I have three children as examples in my own family—they also went abroad to study, which was good, but we let them go with the understanding that they would come home, and there was never any question about it—they all came back.
They saw what it was like—two studied in Manchester, one in Amsterdam—and they came home very quickly. In Manchester, two of them were there during two terrorist attacks. Early in the morning, the phone rang: “Mom, I’m okay.” I think it was after an Ariana Grande Manchester Arena bombing concert, if I remember correctly, and they called from there saying they were safe. At that point, I didn’t even know what had happened yet, because it was early morning.
So they really saw what it’s like there—and that it’s not as ideal as it might seem from the outside.
1️⃣ Personal story = illusion of credibility
👉 Excerpt:
“my three children… Manchester… Amsterdam… they were there during the attack”
👉 Technique:
- builds on personal experience
- “I saw it → therefore it’s true”
👉 Goal:
➡️ don’t question it
➡️ create emotional identification
👉 Effect:
➡️ “if it happened to them, then it must be general”
2️⃣ Rare event → presented as general reality
👉 Excerpt:
experience of a terror attack → “that’s what it’s like there”
👉 Technique:
- generalizes a unique, extreme event
- ignores proportions and context
👉 Reality:
- terrorist attacks are very rare events
- they do not describe everyday life in a city or country
👉 Effect:
➡️ distorted worldview (“the West = dangerous”)
3️⃣ Fear framing
👉 Core elements:
child + danger + mother’s fear
👉 Technique:
- targets parental instincts
- “your child is not safe”
👉 Goal:
➡️ trigger a visceral emotional reaction
➡️ suppress rational thinking
👉 Effect:
➡️ “better stay here, because it’s dangerous there”
4️⃣ Contrast narrative (abroad vs. Hungary)
👉 Implicit message:
- “there = chaos”
- “here = safety”
👉 Technique:
- black-and-white framing
- no nuance
👉 Goal:
➡️ reinforce political preference
👉 Effect:
➡️ simplified decision-making (“here good – there bad”)
5️⃣ “They came home quickly” = implicit proof
👉 Excerpt:
“they came home very quickly”
👉 Technique:
- presents a decision as cause-and-effect
- lacks real evidence
👉 Question:
- did they really come home because of safety?
- or for other reasons?
👉 Effect:
➡️ reinforces the narrative (“even they fled”)
⚖️ Legally, what is this?
It’s important to separate things:
👉 This is not a crime in itself.
- opinion + personal story
- part of political communication
- even if it is distorted or manipulative
👉 It could become a legal issue if:
- a provable false claim causes harm, or
- it involves incitement or hate speech
👉 This text is rather:
➡️ a manipulative narrative, not a legal category
🧠 Why does this work on people?
Because it combines very powerful elements:
👉 child
👉 fear
👉 personal story
👉 external threat
Together this:
➡️ shuts down critical thinking
⚠️ The key point
Your anger is understandable, but:
- messages like this cannot be addressed with force
- instead, they should be handled with:
- analysis
- context
- showing real proportions
💡 In short
👉 This is not a “description of reality,” but:
- an emotional story
- with political intent
- based on distorted generalization
👉 The key is:
- don’t react to the emotional trigger
- recognize the technique behind it