Womans Lib - Illuminati

Did you know that Womans Lib was a design to destroy the family?

In the letters between two famous illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and the Lawyer Zwack, Zwack said:

"It should consist of two classes: the virtuous and the freerhearted (i.e., those who fly out of the common tract of prudish manners) ... Proper books must be put into their hands, and such as are flattering to their passions."

Read Platos Republic if youre curious where such behavior will lead us; and why the illuminati thought 'divide and conquer' would be most effective between a man and his wife. There is no deeper riff to overcome then that.

This is why we cant watch a single sitcom on TV roday where the man isnt presented as a total moron. Name a show, and i can name 5 more where the man is dumb, and the woman is smart or smarter.

Simpsons. Bart and Homer = Dumb, Marge and Lisa = smarter
Everybody loves Raymond. Raymond = moron, and Debra = long sufferring, sensible wife who understands the insanity around her.
According To Jim. Jim = dumb , his wife = smart
Family Guy. Peter = Dumb , Lois = smarter
Futurama. fry = dumb, leela = smarter, or smarter
Modern Family. Father = idiot, Mother = smarter
The king of queens. Man = dumb, Woman = smarter
Home Improvement. Man = dumb, Wife = smarter
South Park = Randy = nutjob moron, Shaton = smarter and more stable
Malcolm in the Middle = Dad is a passive, pathetic push over, Mom = a bit crazy, yet the 'active' masculine decision maker. Gender roles are reversed here
Two and a Half men = this show all around #s on men and their maturity
Cleveland Show = cleveland = dumb, donna = more sensible

My point with all this? Theyre trying to ingrain in us stereotypes; very pathetic and backwards stereotypes that propel men to act with an animal sensibility; to just do what he "naturally" is supposed to do; which is, to be a sport loving, immature, careless, thoughtless, automaton, while the woman has a greater sense of the 'values' that the family needs to establish. While i Agree that a woman has this as her natural strength; the caricature of the man, as this complete and pathetic idiot without an ounce of intellectual knowledge or wisdom - as men have historically had (up until the age of popular culture) debases men, and this is clearly intended.

The illuminati was and is a mystical society. These men were philosophers first; and then political conspirators second. They understood that the dynamic of a 'patriarchial' society is Morality, responsibility, and development of Reason and Intellect. Conversely, the major flux of a 'feminine' society, of a 'feminine, earth based, pagan society, is the emotions. To just "be" to act 'freely' and liberally, and do what thou wilt without regard for the law. The feminine dynamic is thus in complete opposition to the masculine. Thus, we see in even popular fiction, this feminine dynamic between man and woman is recreated. With the man as being a oaf ie; passive, whereas the woman is more 'sensible' ie; active. This is how the unconscious works, and this is how people can be influenced. There are natural principles, male and female, and the social architects, mystics as they are, are always acting with this knowledge in mind.

Well I bet more women would complain if they we're pictured has being more stupid then men in tv shows, men aren't going to make a big fuss about it has much.
But I agree it has gone too far, some think that women are smarter then men when we are equal.

Men and women are different and they each have stereotyped talents.

Men are better with orientation but women have better smell.
Men are more resistant to physical pain, while women are more resistant to mental pain.
Men panic less but women have more temper.
Men are more confidant but women plan more.
etc.etc.

Of course this is stereotyping, not 100% fact.
Although, let's say you make the world more adapted to men, well men will seem "better".
If you make things more adapted to women, women will seem better.

I feel a lot of the way the school system works, it's more oriented on women.
Generally, women are more conformist then men.
Men also tend to lose concentration around women a lot more then women around men.
Men more often want to know "how things work" and school is not about this, it's about repeating what you learned has precisely has possible.

Men characteristics and instincts are more often judged has primal and aggressive while women instincts has deeper and insightful...

Yeah, I go on and on...I agree men are really taking a psychological beating!
But men don't cry, oh no. They are strong and don't need help in life.

Also, people always feel more willing to help women, women and men a like.
Women are often scared of men and men think they might make up if they help a poor girl.

reply to post by dontreally


How could you mention the illuminati and women and leave this out of your OP.....

“There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation…of standing up for themselves…it will cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire for personal admiration.”
Adam Weishaupt
www.modernhistoryproject.org...

There main goals were...
1.Abolition of the Monarchy and all ordered government.
2.Abolition of private property.
3.Abolition of inheritance.
4.Abolition of patriotism.
5.Abolition of the family, through the abolition of marriage, all morality, and the institution of communal education for children.
6.Abolition of all religion.

(Note the full quote isn`t in the above link only part of it is,you can find the full quote by copying and pasteing it in full into google and you find it in many places,that link above imo is very informative regarding the illuminati)

Aaron Russo said Rockefeller ( Youtube won't even load videos for me anymore to verify for you OP) funded The Womens Lib. It's in an interview with Alex Jones if I recall.

reply to post by User8911


I have nothing but respect for woman, but as i mentioned in my earlier posts; there are natural, and divinely established principles that repeat themselves through reality.

For instance, in ancient mythology, the woman was called the earth, hence why we have the nomenclature "mother earth", and why G-d, is typically conceived of as a man..

These are symbolic ideas; rooted in gender differences on a abstract and philosophical level, and not in the 'male or female' we see here below.

Male for instance is thought of as the 'active', determinant, influencing principle. Proof? These ideas mind you are ancient, and are based in a mystical idea of how reality works. A mans penis is like a 'line', which is inserted into a opening, which is the womans vagina. The 'line' - the energy - gives of its raw potentiality - the semen - to the woman. The woman, passive throughout this beginning process, takes the seed and develops it within her.




This image is actually a mystical symbol. The line represents an abstract energy. The circle represents manifest reality. When the potential energy enters the circle, potential becomes reality.

We can see this throughout. Men are usually regarded as more 'intellectual' (although woman are intellectual aswell), so, when a man stands besides a woman, his 'head' ie; his intellect, transcends her 'head', which can be regarded as the physical. The mans natural facility is in logic; being less emotional, and less disturbed by 'horomones' a man can think more clearly and logically. A woman by contrast has her head around the chest of a man. Her 'intellect' is at his chest level; indicating its emotionality. Again, this does not mean woman are dumb, or men are emotionless. It just means a natural flux is dominant in each.

We can go on analyzing this phenomena in every thing, and it appears over and over and over again.

We can analyze how a mans soldiers are broader, while his waste is thinner. Indicating a downward triangle. Ie; the energy comes 'down' from without. The man is a symbol for the abstract, 'potential' principle. In contrast, a womans broader at her hips, while thinner at the top. Indicating an upwards triangle, that 'recieves' the energy.

Common analogies for this is form and substance, or light and vessel... The point is, the feminine is the 'passive'
principle that recieves; just as she can only recieve the seed from the man in cppulation, and just as this is a basic, immutable law of the cosmos; so to, in a family, the man is the 'head', the source of wisdom, guidance, and the breadwinner ie; bringing the 'vitality' and 'sustenance' needed for the families survival, from without - in his job or business, while the wife, the feminine principle, takes this raw, undeveloped vitality, and like a child growing in her womb, gives expression to it. She teaches her children, takes care of her home, prepares the meals, in other words, she gives expression to the family; to what makes a family a family. Likewise, and all men can vouche for this, when a man marries the woman he loves, the woman tends to focus him and ignite a spark in him to be a better man; to be stronger, more succesful; such is the effect of the love and motivation of a committed woman.

The problem today is that woman have been conditioned to see this beautiful cosmic principle as 'offensive' and 'demeaning' or 'subjugating' , when in fact this is the nature of things. They love nature up until it interferes with their damn emotional, suggestible, and at many times, arrogant fits of 'equality'.

As you said. There is no means. There cant be. There can either be one in a state of domination, or the other. When its the feminine, the masculine is debased, emotions take hold, feelings become all-too important, and morality, etc becomes a bore.

However, when one is in tune with the natural dynamic; when the minds of men and woman, and all mankind, work in unison with the divine energies, manifesting in principle the divine principles up above, in human relations, then the world is in a state of rectification and wholeness. This is the only recipe for true peace that exists.

Now, dont get the idea now that im saying all woman have to be homemakers.. No such thing is needed. The emphasis is a dominant tendancy. As long as the majority of men are doing what they naturally are inclined to do, and they do it well with intelligence and wisdom, and as long as the majority of woman do what they need to do, with love and intensity (woman being the more intensed, focused and determined of the two), then thats all thats needed. Some women indeed are more masculine like, and would probably be better suited to being a business woman; but, this shouldnt be done at the expense of her maternal responsibilities to her children husband and home...

Umm, I hate to tell you but some men are stupid. I know two who cannot cook or think without a woman. Another that cannot drive due to panic attacks. I don't know whether you think women are useless or you're on something, but some people just do not have common sense and the ones who do utilize it.

Whether man or woman have common sense, you need to use it. I know a guy down the street that acts like Homer Simpson. I wouldn't be surprised if he said D'oh.

reply to post by dontreally


I thought that was just an LED sign but you got that, damn! Why was I so blind to miss that sign ?

Originally posted by dontreally
Did you know that Womans Lib was a design to destroy the family?

As opposed to what, exactly?

In the letters between two famous illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and the Lawyer Zwack, Zwack said:

"It should consist of two classes: the virtuous and the freerhearted (i.e., those who fly out of the common tract of prudish manners) ... Proper books must be put into their hands, and such as are flattering to their passions."

Read Platos Republic if youre curious where such behavior will lead us; and why the illuminati thought 'divide and conquer' would be most effective between a man and his wife. There is no deeper riff to overcome then that.

Weishaupt and Zwack? Oh... man. You're talking about the Bavarian Illuminati? You... do realize that the Bavarian Illuminati (or Perfectibilists) are pretty far removed from the modern concept of "Illuminati" don't you? Basically the Bavarian Illuminati were only a "secret society" because they were a social club that continued to operate "underground" after the ruler of Bavaria declared all organizations of any sort illegal?

Plato's Republic is a paean to Plato, by Plato. Hell, all this garbage about Atlantis? Cooked up by Plato, to win an argument against a straw man opponent of Plato, to prove the superiority if Plato's ideas in Plato's paean to Plato.

This is why we cant watch a single sitcom on TV roday where the man isnt presented as a total moron. Name a show, and i can name 5 more where the man is dumb, and the woman is smart or smarter.

And several of these shows are also quite misogynistic. Here, let me show you.

Simpsons. Bart and Homer = Dumb, Marge and Lisa = smarter

To be fair to Bart and homer, they started out pretty normal - Homer was "average guy", a working dad who had it hard at times. As the show went on (and on... and on... and on...) he got dumber and dumber. This is a trope known, oddly, as Flandersization (after Ned Flanders, another character in the show, who went from being the Christian neighbor to being THE CHRISTIAN neighbor). Flandersization is demonstrated in most of these examples, in fact.

Anyway, how is The Simpsons misogynistic? First, you have two speaking females - Marge and Lisa. There are some cameos and one-shots, but these are the two regulars. On the other hand we have Bart, Homer, Moe, Barney, Mr. Burns, Smithers, Krusty the Klown, Chief Wiggums, Ralph Wiggums, Milhouse, and Ned Flanders as regular speaking males, and certainly no shortage of extras and cameos. The plots are, almost one and all, male-driven. Marge and Lisa had their shining moments early in the dseries, but now mostly revolve around the actions of bart and homer (Marge and Lisa have been Flandersized as well, note)

The Simpsons is not deeply misogynistic, I'll grant; but it is still heavily dominated by a male perspective.

Everybody loves Raymond. Raymond = moron, and Debra = long sufferring, sensible wife who understands the insanity around her.

This was totally not what I got out of that show. I took it that, yes, Raymond is a typical "below average" sitcom dad, but he actually has his heart in the right place and has doing good for his family first and foremost. His wife, however, came across as a spiteful, haranguing bitch who strives to hold her husband back, and punishes him for anything less than surpassing her standards for perfection.

According To Jim. Jim = dumb , his wife = smart

Never actually saw this one. Watching the Episode titled "Foul Ball" on youtube, though, I don't think I missed much. Yeah, Jim's a dumbass. However, Cheryl seems to be "stock sitcom housewife" herself - everything revolves around Jim, and Jim's children, and she doesn't take any definitive stands, because, hey, the title of the show is According to Jim, and not According to Cheryl. Jim is himself rather misogynist, and Cheryl puts up with it for no really good reason. His misogyny is played up for laughs, in a sort of "you tell it!" way, rather than a "what a dumbass!" way

Family Guy. Peter = Dumb , Lois = smarter

Oh my god. Are you seriously citing Family guy as "women's lib in TV? Family Guy. Have you ever WATCHED Family guy? Oh... wow. we could go on for days about how Family Guy is the least feminist thing since pimpslaps. Let's take Meg. From the perspective of the art itself, Meg looks pretty much just like her mother, except with brown hair and glasses. However, every person in the show treats her as if she looked like something from the back of the refrigerator. Even her own FAMILY is apparently absolutely repulsed by her. She engages in desperate schemes to try to get in bed with the family dog who also happens to find her repulsive in the extreme. And this is a main character in the show, and is absolutely played for laughs. It's FUNNY to completely tear down the self-esteem of a teenage girl, HAHAHAHA! It's perfectly valid to judge her on her appearance, isn't it? And if those appearances don't mesh with the huge-breasted, blonde Farah Fawcett-lookalikes the show often also features, then we MUST treat her like some blob of inhuman flesh-putty. The female characters in Family guy are frankly brutalized by the show's writers.

Futurama. fry = dumb, leela = smarter, or smarter

Everyone is smarter than Fry - even Bender, the show's homer-bot, is smarter than Fry. That's kind of the gag of the show - modern people are dumb. And while Leela is portrayed as a competent and intelligent woman, Amy is a blundering, ditzy airhead obsessed with shopping and pink clothing. The show also runs into the same problem as The Simpsons; You have Leela and Amy... and then it's a sausage festival.

Modern Family. Father = idiot, Mother = smarter

I've never seen it, and can't find any decent clips from it. However, I do have this review of the show from a feminist blogger.

The king of queens. Man = dumb, Woman = smarter

Arthur is portrayed as an old crank. He's not "dumb" becuase he's a guy, but rather because he's old. Which is pretty questionable on its own. Doug and Carrie, however, seem pretty much on par with one another. Doug's not dumb, nor is Carrie a genius. for that matter, Doug's not a lazy ass, and she's not a neurotic control freak. i might have to watch more of this one.

Home Improvement. Man = dumb, Wife = smarter

Al was smarter than Tim. All three kids were smarter than Tim. Wilson is smarter than Tim. We're back to the situation with Fry in "Futurama" - it's not that Jill is much smarter than Tim, it's just that Tim is dumber than EVERYONE. Tim is also, like Jim in "All About Jim" very disdainful of women. He usually disregards everything Jill tells him, not because he's unintelligent (which he is) but rather because she is a woman. Same thing with any of the Tool Time girls speak up about anything; Tim brushes them off because they're women and he's a man, and men always know better. He does the same thing to Al - he dismisses everything Al says because Al doesn't fit Tim's image of what makes a man "A Man." This usually leads to things blowing up in Tim's face... Except when it doesn't. Jill is often wrong about things, too... and then Tim grinds her face into how wrong she is.... and we're supposed to identify with and sympathize with him for doing so

South Park = Randy = nutjob moron, Shaton = smarter and more stable

Shelly is a violent moron. need I mention "Aunt Flo"? How do you care for the "Jewish mother" stereotype of Sheila Broflovski? How about Cartman's mom, Liane, who is portrayed as being a complete and utter slut at all points she shows up in the show? Carol McCormick, a positive female role model?

Malcolm in the Middle = Dad is a passive, pathetic push over, Mom = a bit crazy, yet the 'active' masculine decision maker. Gender roles are reversed here

So what, you think a woman's role is to be a pathetic pushover?
Never saw much of this show, either, to be honest.

Two and a Half men = this show all around #s on men and their maturity

Indeed it does. But look at how it portrays women. There are two kinds of women in this show; sexual conquests and utter bitches. Females in this series serve only to either gratify the men, or act as antagonists. There is no middle ground there. you are either an accessory for the men on the show, or you are an adversary to them. There are no "female friends" at all. If a woman in Two and a Half men has a speaking role, either she's a bitch or a romantic interest, period. The show's gender themes amount to nothing other than "women are a pain in the neck, use them then lose them"

Cleveland Show = cleveland = dumb, donna = more sensible

Take everything I said about Family Guy. Repackage it as a vastly less-successful show. There you go.

Now I want you to have a look at these shows.

The Cleveland Show. All About Jim. Everybody Loves Raymond. The King of Queens. Two and a half Men. Family Guy. Notice a trend here? Even the ones that aren't titled with the male lead or an allusion to them, make no mention of the female characters; The Simpsons doesn't mention Marge or Lisa, Home improvement makes no mention of Jill (and certainly not Heidi).

Also, as an aside? With the exception of Cleveland, every single man in these examples is white. And in Cleveland's case, his ethnicity is played as a source of jokes and hindrances, so even THAT enforces the "white is better, black is a tragedy" themes.

Even if the men are bumbling buffoons, they are the headliner. They're the stars of the show. The audience is encouraged to find them endearing, whether they're simply a bit dim like poor old Homer, or actively malicious like Peter. While the women in these shows are excoriated for their bad behavior (if they're alloted even THAT much character) the men are forgiven with "aw shucks, guys will be guys."

My point with all this? Theyre trying to ingrain in us stereotypes; very pathetic and backwards stereotypes that propel men to act with an animal sensibility; to just do what he "naturally" is supposed to do; which is, to be a sport loving, immature, careless, thoughtless, automaton, while the woman has a greater sense of the 'values' that the family needs to establish.

While I can cede your points that "they" are playing a meme towards us, I have to make a few points.

1) "They" are Hollywood writers who are essentially told that if they don't write these stereotypes - that the lead must be a white, nominally christian heterosexual male with an interest in "male" things, they will never sell a script. "They" are certainly not the Illuminati, much less the Bavarian Illuminati. odds are it's no particular agenda, rather it's simply writers writing what they are told sells. It's a self-reinforcing thing.

2) While the men are generally portrayed as being moderately dim and stereotypical, the treatment of women in these shows is worse. The wife is usually portrayed as an antagonist who buckles every time the "man" asserts any authority. She might had a "told you so" moment, but in every show, she ultimately bows to the whim of the man of the house. And that's in the shows that is trying to show the man and woman as partners. In shows like Family Guy and Two and a Half Men, women are objectified and often bestialized. No matter the specific treatment in a given show though, in every case, the women in the show orbit around the men. There are no female-driven shows.

3) You're perfectly capable of looking at these memes and going "Well, that's stupid" and turning off the TV. No one is actually holding you down here. They still make books.

While i Agree that a woman has this as her natural strength; the caricature of the man, as this complete and pathetic idiot without an ounce of intellectual knowledge or wisdom - as men have historically had (up until the age of popular culture) debases men, and this is clearly intended.

Actually I don't think you DO agree that women have any sort of natural strength. or at least if you do, you seem to think it should never be put in contrast to and found superior to that of a man. The idea of a female being the more dominant partner in "Malcom in the Middle" seemed to offend you, and the fact that Lois is (sometimes) smarter than Peter seems to make you think that "Family Guy" is somehow part of "women's lib" despite the gross debasement of women in it. I could be misreading you but between that stuff and the next part, you seem to be pretty clearly of the opinion that women should be "below" men.

The illuminati was and is a mystical society. These men were philosophers first; and then political conspirators second.

Actually they were librarians first, philosophers second, and were never really political conspirators. They read philosophy books, sometimes talked about them, and defied Karl Theodore's ban on all social organizations. They were about as "mystical" as a kennel club.

They understood that the dynamic of a 'patriarchial' society is Morality, responsibility, and development of Reason and Intellect. Conversely, the major flux of a 'feminine' society, of a 'feminine, earth based, pagan society, is the emotions. To just "be" to act 'freely' and liberally, and do what thou wilt without regard for the law. The feminine dynamic is thus in complete opposition to the masculine.

If this is what they "understood" then they, like you, were completely ignorant of reality and fully wrong in their conclusions about the way the world works.

Thus, we see in even popular fiction, this feminine dynamic between man and woman is recreated. With the man as being a oaf ie; passive, whereas the woman is more 'sensible' ie; active.

Popular fiction? have you ever read the Twilight series? If you haven't, I don't blame you and wouldn't encourage you to start. Nevertheless it's about as "popular" as it gets, and is, well, pretty much the opposite of what you're opining here (The female lead is also about the most self-denigrating female character ever; and to think, the whole mess was penned by a woman.)

This is how the unconscious works, and this is how people can be influenced. There are natural principles, male and female, and the social architects, mystics as they are, are always acting with this knowledge in mind.

Except there are no such "natural principles." Gender essentialism is garbage.

Yeah, listen to the Aaron Russo video. Woman's lib wasn't financed with the best of intentions.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Nice try trying to reverse my logic there. If you paid attention to the point of this thread, i only emphasize the wife-husband relationship. It is this dynamic and mold which does the conditioning. OK? Mentioning other 'female' or male characters who display traits that betray this dynamic is irrelevant. I am point out the subjugation of the male to the female. Fry was the love interest of leela. and in this relationship, he was the subjugated, morally ignorant oaf who needed her guidance.

Nope. It is patently clear what is being done, which apparently you find to be totally normal. Men of course are always in the mold of those that i listed, right? Well, thanks to this propaganda, the conditioning has been rooted deeper. Man has been subjugated to the feminine principle. And many - my dad sometimes unfortunately - cower before this conditioining without realizing that they are doing so.

And as for Debra being a 'haranguing annoying bitch", i really beg to differ. Have you ever watched that show with a woman? My mom and sister definitely begin to "identify" (which is the purpose and point of this archetypal display) with Debra in her role as 'dictator'. Whether Raymond was 'good hearted' or not doesnt matter. Its how he is conveyed. And hes shown to be an intellectually and morally inferior personality.

Why do i even talk to you? Youre all for this feminine worship, bondaries eliminated, return to ancient paganism philosophy.... And anything i write you will try to distort, and offer some counter-logic, which to any sensible person should understand is merely there to obfuscate the obvious stereotypical programming being done against males.

This is a feminine society. Anyone with a shred of understanding knows that. The emotions are "freer" then ever before. Law, logic and moral responsibility, especially with this UN declaration of homosexual rights is in the decline. We are being forced to ignore concrete reality, to instead indulge in the 'spirit' of things. "Experience" is all that is important in this feminine worship society we live in. The Abrahamic wisdom traditions, which emphasize 'morality', are looked down upon as primitive, while the eastern traditions; buddhism, hinduism, etc, which are essentially an expression of moral relativism (with all their gods, etc) is being quickly ingrained.

The movie avatar paid homage to the goddess.
The movie industry and music industry do so aswell.

So it is only natural that the masculine "wisdom" and "guidance" principle which should typify a mans role in his family, be degraded, and made fun of.

True, not all shows are like this. There are some more balanced ones. But, the above shows are exceedingly popular and they are all more or less of the same mold.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Actually I don't think you DO agree that women have any sort of natural strength. or at least if you do, you seem to think it should never be put in contrast to and found superior to that of a man. The idea of a female being the more dominant partner in "Malcom in the Middle" seemed to offend you, and the fact that Lois is (sometimes) smarter than Peter seems to make you think that "Family Guy" is somehow part of "women's lib" despite the gross debasement of women in it. I could be misreading you but between that stuff and the next part, you seem to be pretty clearly of the opinion that women should be "below" men.

OK....My other post emphasizes the significance of woman. I respect woman. I think there are woman who are profound and unique thinkers in many a field. My problem is not the woman being cast as morally superior, but with the man being cast as a blundering moron. If there were a balance; if the man were presented as a reasonable moral authority, and a man of understanding - as we should logically want - with the wife as an equally moral, and supportive complement, between the two of them we could learn and ingrain a proper understanding of how the two should relate to each other.

Im not 'offended' by the mother in malcolm and the middle. I am offended by the fathers subservience to her. It is that which is patently demeaning. Do you get that? I am making issue of the male/female active/passive flip flop here. It reverses how things naturally are - unless of course you deny the natural principles of mal/active, female/passive. Which you do. Distinctions mean nothing to your choatic, emotionally unstable mind.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Popular fiction? have you ever read the Twilight series? If you haven't, I don't blame you and wouldn't encourage you to start. Nevertheless it's about as "popular" as it gets, and is, well, pretty much the opposite of what you're opining here (The female lead is also about the most self-denigrating female character ever; and to think, the whole mess was penned by a woman.)

umm right. Do you get the point of twilight? Who is the damsel in distress? Who is the object of the worship and attention? You really have a distorted perception of almost everything. Bella is the virgin of their attention. All the men bend over backwards like moral disfunctional pee brains to get her attention.

I have seen it; all of them (unfortunately my sister/brother like movies) and in each one the vampires, the werewolves, and everybody revolves around her. It is a replusively hyper-emotional ultra feminine movie.

It is the epitome of female worship.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


dp