27 nations in Europe (soon to be 28), are part of an organization called the European Union (EU), an organization ruled by a Maoist[1] and a college of commissioners among which one can find former KGB members and radical feminists, such as Viviane Reding[2], a person whom AVFM News Europe has covered in the past.

The decision making process in the EU resembles astonishingly the one seen back in the days of the USSR. Then we had a group of appointed individuals who were drafting legislation – the Politburo – and a surrogate of a parliament which was elected but had the sole right to rubber stamp the Politburo’s decisions. It was called the Supreme Soviet. In the EU(SSR), we have a group of 27 appointed individuals who have the sole right to draft legislation – called the European Commission – and a surrogate of a parliament which is elected but has the sole right to rubber stamp the aforementioned Commission’s decisions. It is called the European Parliament.

This being said, next Tuesday, the Supreme Soviet the European Parliament will have a vote[3] on a Report called “Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU” – which is, in some portions, a skewed form of ACTA for feminist reasons[4].

Article 17 from the Report, reads as follows:

Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism

And by “media” the EU means the Internet. too. How do we know that? We read the Article 14 from the same report, which says:

Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere;

So, basically, this piece of legislation allows the European Union to decide whether a website should be viewed by Europeans or not, or if a piece of news can be broadcast or not – all for ideological reasons. Where did we see that before? I for one saw it in the days of Ceaușescu in Romania when the State could simply shut down a publication or remove an article from a magazine or a newspaper if it was deemed to be “ideologically incorrect” – and this was the exact term. So many nations in the former Eastern block joined the EU in order to never see this happening again – not to start it all over.

But it’s not just the porn

Banning access to sexually oriented material is bad enough, but there is even more to it than that. This piece of legislation is basically a Marxist-feminist manifesto demanding for statist redistribution of wealth and, of course, for more money to the feminist industry. If you still think “Marxist” isn’t a good term, let’s read the Article 20:

Calls on the Commission to assist Member States in combating the sexualisation of girls not only by compiling the necessary data, promoting good practices and organising information campaigns, but also by providing financial support for measures taken in the Member States, in particular for women’s organisations fighting against sexualisation and violence against women and girls;

In other words: more money taken from the labor force and given to the feminist industry. The Article Z in the same report reads as follows:

whereas in 2010 women still earned an average of approximately 16, 4 % less than men for the same jobs in the EU, and whereas the pay gap varies within Member States, exceeding an average of 22% in some of them in 2011; whereas, although there are many complex reasons for this salary gap, it is often the result of gender stereotypes and women being seen solely in terms of the traditional role distribution;

So, basically, let’s pay women the same, regardless of the fact that they choose less paying fields of employment. A few years ago, a Swedish feminist in the European Parliament actually said that she can’t understand why a man working on a oil rig has to earn more than a woman working as a social worker for the State. Such is their lack of understanding of how real life works.

But since we’re on the “gender pay gap” issue, it’s worth mentioning that in constructions (a so-called “masculine” field) women earn much more than men in ten countries of the EU, among which are Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and Italy[6]. Speaking of Italy, in this country men earn on average 30% less than their female counterparts[7]. Does this piece of legislation address that? Quite the contrary. A negative gender pay gap is applauded and seen as “progress.” This is what creating a misandric and discriminatory climate means for feminists – “progress.”

The rabbit hole goes deeper. Article 1 from this report reads as follows:

Notes that there is a severe lack of progress on honouring the commitments made both by the EU and by various governments as part of the Beijing Platform for Action, and stresses the need for new indicators in the area of gender stereotypes and for analytical reports at EU level, and invites the European Institute for Gender Equality to address this issue;

The “Beijing Platform for Action” was developed at an event held in 1995 sponsored by the UN[8] which was basically a huge meeting between radical feminists and Marxists worldwide to cook up a plan through which the world would be remodeled along the feminist lines[9]. It’d be great if this was a joke or a nightmare at the end of which we wake up. Unfortunately, this is the reality. The “Beijing Platform for Action” is a huge document dealing with most of the Marxist-Feminist talking points: transferring authority over the child solely to mothers via the State and feminizing the education system worldwide.

For many years, the European Union didn’t talk extensively about this. But now, not only are they not hiding it, but they actually attempt to push legislation in the name of the aforementioned platform.

Perhaps the most telling articles in this document are the article 48 to 51:

48. Recalls that the 2014 European elections, followed by the appointment of the next Commission and nominations for the EU ‘top jobs‘, are a chance to move towards parity democracy at EU level and for the EU to be a role model in this field;

49. Calls on the Member States to support parity by proposing a woman and a man as their candidates for the office of European Commissioner; calls on the nominated President of the Commission to aim at parity when forming the Commission; calls on the present Commission to publicly support this procedure;

50. Recalls that, in 2010, only 12 % of the members of management boards in Europe were women; supports the Commission’s desire to establish binding quotas for women in posts of responsibility in the largest listed companies;

51. Lays emphasis on the need for such quotas to be binding as this is the only way of guaranteeing their efficacy; proposes that an ‘equality fund’ be established, into which monies collected under resultant penalties would be paid for use in measures to promote and protect women;

So here we have the EU telling us for whom we should vote (48), whom we should appoint as commissioners (49), how to run our private businesses (50) and punishing those who might have a problem with that (51). Article 21 tells us how the media should be run:

Calls on the Member States to implement positive action measures to ensure that more women have access to management positions in the media, including top management positions;

Does this document call to implement “positive action measures” to ensure that more women work on coal mines, collect trash, dig the shit out from pipelines or shovel asphalt on our highways outside, in the middle of the summer, at 50 degrees Celsius or more? Of course not. Those jobs are for the sub-humans.

Speaking of sub-humans, article 53 explains to us quite clearly which demographic is the human one and, consequently, worthy of attention:

Calls on the Member States to make combating violence against women a priority in penal policy; encourages Member States to develop, to this end, cooperation between their judicial authorities and national police services, and the exchange of good practice;