Does Shell pay well? Does war pay well?
I asked Tisza politicians Andrea Bujdosó and István Kapitány how much they earned from the war through the appreciation of Shell shares over the past four years.
As mothers, our real responsibility is to ensure that our children grow up in a safe country. That is why we have been fighting for years to make sure Hungary does not drift into war and that we do not have to pay the price of other people’s wars.
Let’s say it openly: in Munich, Tisza entered into a pro-war pact, pledging to fulfill all of Brussels’ demands if they come to power.
We will not send Hungarian taxpayers’ money to Ukraine, and we will do everything in our power to preserve peace in Hungary. That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
How much did you earn during the war from the increase in the value of your Shell shares? Exactly how much did you personally earn from the war over the past four years, Madam Parliamentary Group Leader? How much did István Kapitány earn during these war years? Tens of millions of forints, right, Madam MP? You personally earned tens of millions from the war.
And then to speak about responsibility as a woman and as a mother — you are a mother as well. I believe that our responsibility as women, as mothers, is to ensure that our children — and indeed every Hungarian child — grow up in a safe country. A country that does not drift into war. A country that does not pay the price of others’ wars. A country that stands up for Hungarian interests and does not bow to demands from Brussels or Kyiv.
You are selling out this country. That is what you are doing. You are Judas’s best disciples.
In Munich, you made a pro-war pact whose essence is this: Brussels supports you in exchange for your compliance if you come to power here — whether it concerns Ukraine’s fast-tracked EU membership, the arming of Ukraine, or sending Hungarian taxpayers’ money to Ukraine. That is what your so-called Munich pact is about. That is why you met with those war-supporting leaders who have repeatedly spoken out in favor of continuing the war in recent months.
1️⃣ Profit Framing – “Who profited from the war?”
📌 Technique:
- Repeated, specific financial accusations (“tens of millions of forints”).
- Linking stock price growth to the war.
- Direct personal confrontation (“How much did you earn?”).
🎯 Goal:
To elevate the political debate to a moral level: not a policy disagreement, but “war profiteering.”
💥 Effect:
The audience does not perceive the issue as geopolitical or energy policy-related, but as a moral scandal.
This is classic profit-from-war framing.
2️⃣ Motherhood and Moral Superiority – “We, mothers”
📌 Technique:
- Identity-based community building (“we, women,” “we, mothers”).
- Child safety presented as the highest moral value.
- Implicit moral questioning of the opponent.
🎯 Goal:
To transform a political position into a moral obligation.
💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from foreign policy choices to the question of “who is the responsible mother.”
This is moral high ground occupation.
3️⃣ Secret Deal Narrative – “The Munich pact”
📌 Technique:
- Mentioning a specific location (“Munich”) to enhance perceived credibility.
- The word “pact” suggesting a backstage or secret agreement.
- “Brussels supports them in exchange” → implying external control.
🎯 Goal:
To portray the political opponent as acting against national sovereignty.
💥 Effect:
Voters experience the decision not as a policy choice, but as a loyalty test.
This is classic external control framing.
4️⃣ Betrayal Metaphor – “Disciples of Judas”
📌 Technique:
- Strong biblical reference (betrayal, disloyalty).
- Moral demonization.
- Use of religious-cultural symbolism.
🎯 Goal:
To frame the opponent not as a political rival, but as morally condemnable.
💥 Effect:
Increased polarization and emotional identification with the “defenders.”
This is traitor framing.
5️⃣ War = Energy Prices = Family Threat
📌 Technique:
- Linking support for Ukraine to Hungarian energy prices.
- The formula: “We are paying the price of others’ war.”
- Activating economic fear.
🎯 Goal:
To transform a geopolitical issue into a direct household-level threat.
💥 Effect:
The audience interprets the conflict through their own financial security.
This is pocketbook anxiety framing.
🔎 Overall Picture
The text simultaneously employs:
- Moral framing (motherhood, children, betrayal),
- Economic fear (war profits, energy prices),
- External interference narrative (Brussels, pact),
- Personal stigmatization (profiteering accusations).
As a result, the debate moves entirely away from concrete policy details and becomes identity- and loyalty-based:
“Who protects our children?”
vs.
“Who sells out the country?”