The Konformist

Version 2.0
August 1998

Home Page
Related Links
Classified Ads
What's Hot!!!
Regular Issues
Special Issues
Beast Of The Month
The Vault

The Mother Was A Mother

Special Note: For your convenience, we've included this special cancellation template below for any of you offended by this vicious attack on a soon-to-be-saint. Thank you, and have a nice day.



I found the Konformist piece on Mother Teresa to be offensive, blasphemous, and utterly without taste. Please cancel my subscription, and may you and all your ilk BURN IN HELL!!!

(Name here)

(Email address here)


The Mother Was A Mother

Robert Sterling


"I came here not to praise Caesar, but to bury him."

Marc Antony, in Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare (aka Francis Bacon?)


Picture courtesy of Electric Frog Graphics

You know, I really wasn't looking forward to writing this. When Mother Teresa died, though I knew there was some dirt on her (most of it almost obsessively documented by British journalist Christopher Hitchens in his gleefully nasty documentary Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta), I figured, "Well, now that she's passed away, it's probably not a good time to be pointing this out."

But I can't take it anymore. The chorus of pious praise that is being spewed out by the forked-tongued serpents of the korporate media has left a bitter taste in my mouth. When even ex-Reagan pap-penner Peggy Noonan and wacky new-age kult-member Arianna Huffington have to chime in about what a wonderful gal Ms. T was, well, I must enter the fray, with a spiteful dissent.

First of all, there's all this talk about her being a "humble, modest women." To which I say: BULLSHIT! Here is what this "humble" woman said, describing what would happen when she dies: St. Peter would come up to her, and "he will say, 'But what have you done, Mother Teresa, filling up Paradise with all your poor people?'" This, of course, is the ultimate in arrogance: proclaiming your place in heaven, a decision, supposedly according to her own beliefs, of God alone. Even I'm not that smug! Isn't it obvious that her persona was just an act, that she was really just a queen of p.r., that the biggest supporter of the "Mother Teresa is a saint" campaign has been Mother Teresa herself? Even Madonna doesn't try (nor would she get away with) half the crap this media whore seemed to succeed at. But then again, she got a free ride from the start, being promoted first in the West by Malcolm Muggeridge (who, oddly enough, was a contributor to the magazine for the Process Church.)

Oh, sure, she had some "controversies." After all, we are reminded, she was a vociferous condemner of abortion and birth control, spouting such opinions in a place where over-population was indeed a problem. The response, of course, is that she had her beliefs, and she was not going to let politics get in the way of her speaking the truth. As Time Magazine put it, "She was never afraid to speak and act with impunity on matters of the secular world." Perhaps it is her desire of "speaking the truth" that led her to state, "I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion," and then to condemn birth control, all leading to a stunned silence of the Klintons and Gores at a 1995 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.

Believe it or not, I can respect someone stating their opinion recklessly, utterly oblivious to how appropriate it is to the situation, if it is something they passionately believe. I also have to admire anyone who could offend the President and her husband to their face like she did. My question is: why did Mother Teresa stop there? If she had no qualms about condemning abortion and birth control in front of the Commander In Chief, why didn't she condemn the Duvaliers as bloodthirsty tyrants and urge them to stop their mass murder in Haiti when she visited them? Surprisingly, in the company of these destroyers of peace, she was notably silent of any moral proclamations, instead patting them on the back, and giving respect to those who deserved none. Am I missing something here?

The answer, of course, is that, unlike the lie of her being "oblivious to politics," she was very conscious of the effects of her pronouncements, and thus chose her words to further her own agenda. Thus, talking tough to a thuggish butcher in Haiti would have merely alienated her there and made her persona non grata, so naturally she clammed up. But knowing that Klinton was a pussy and would never bad mouth her, she went all out in promoting her reactionary agenda. We can argue all we want if her positions on birth control or abortion are legitimate or not, but there is no doubt that there was no courage behind her words, that it was just another reflection of what a opportunistic moral coward she was.

Which leads me to my other point: how much did she really care about the poor, and how much did she really fight the material world? Like most of the two-faced leadership in the Catholic Church, for all her claims of being a "servant of poverty", Mother Teresa was a money machine. No reason to take a stand against the economic powers that be, who made her seem so nonchalant about the importance of the dollar: on where her money came from, she stated, "The Lord sends it. We do his work; he provides the means." What were the means that the Lord provided it? Besides the plundering Duvaliers, she happily accepted $1.25 million from S&L swindler Charles Keating, an amount she didn't return even after it was discovered the money was stolen and was stained with the blood of those destroyed by this crook. Not only that, she proceeded to write a letter to the judge in the Keating trial (it was Lance Ito, incidentally), urging leniency for the con artist as he was about to be sentenced. It's not surprising: she knew what side buttered her bread. Her peaceful platitudes to plutocrats brought her a Michael Jordan-esque sum of $30 million a year, and when she died, her order had $41 million in assets in India alone. And the bitch didn't even have a good jump shot.

Despite this money, her missionaries were noticeably frugal... at least as far as it concerns those who needed it. When one volunteer questioned why no pain-killing drugs were supplied to those who visited, the response shot back, "This is not a treatment center. This is a place where the dying can die with dignity." Even in a notably impoverished area as Calcutta, those who visited with any knowledge of normal treatment standards knew that Mother T's home was seriously lacking. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa flew around the world with the jet-set crowd, overlooking their indulgences if they would back her cause with cash.

"Oh, come on, these are cheap shots," you're probably saying, the common criticism to Hitchens' vicious critiques. And this is true... to a point. Bringing up Keating and Haiti is an unfair, simplistic analysis of her life works, and everyone, even saints, have their "bad apples." A much fairer critique would look at her life works, her goals, and make a judgement based on the big picture context.

Unfortunately for the Teresa-lovers, this is where she fails miserably. The truth is, despite the shabby treatment of the patients at her mission, it was at least a nice gesture. But the more you look at the Mother Teresa agenda, the worse it appears, and no amount of good works can compensate or excuse her warped ideology.

There is much in dispute of who Jesus Christ was or what he stood for: indeed, there are serious doubts if he ever actually existed. Still, there is one story about Jesus that seems so strange, that it's hard for me to imagine it being made up by mythologists. As recounted in William Bramley's The Gods of Eden, there is good reason to suspect that Jesus, having been born and bred to be a "Messiah", was sent to learn philosophies and secret traditions in Asia and India, among other places. Perhaps it is his visit to India which is reported in the Buddhist "Legend of Issa", a document purported to have been uncovered in a Himi Monastery in 1887. "Issa", according to legend, traveled to the East to study when he turned 13, returning to Palestine sixteen years later at age 29. At age 14, Issa, described as "The Blessed One", settled among the Brahman Priests, the Aryan elite of the caste system. At first, they welcomed him joyfully, but soon became annoyed by Issa's desire to associate with those of the lower castes. As the legend puts it:


But the Brahmins and the Kshatriya (members of the military caste) told him that they were forbidden to come near those who were created from his belly and his feet (the mythical origin of the lower castes)...

That the Sudras (one of the lower castes) were not only forbidden to attend the readings of the Vedas, but even to look on them; for they were condemned to perpetual servitude, as slaves of the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, and even the Vaisyas.

But Issa, disregarding their words, remained with the Sudras, preaching against the Brahmins and Kshatiyas.

He declaimed strongly against man's arrogating to himself the authority to deprive his fellow-beings of their human and spiritual rights. "Verily," he said, "God has made no difference between his children, who are all alike dear to Him."

Issa denied the divine inspiration of the Vedas and the Puranas (a class of sacred writings)...


Eventually, Issa pissed off the Brahmins and the warlords so much, they sent servants to knock him off, an assassination that Issa barely escaped by fleeing the town.

Usually, mythology and religion (which are one in the same) are perverted and warped, so that even the most noble person or figure and their cause is turned upside down to represent everything that they detest. No figure has been perverted more in history than Jesus, becoming a symbol for a corrupted elite that has wallowed in genocide which still is unmatched in history. No doubt, then, any story supposedly involving Jesus must be taken with a grain of salt.

And yet, here we have a story that is almost buried in history (which is as good a sign of truth as any), that serves no agenda of the elites (another marker of a legit story.) I am told by those who study such things that the document is not a hoax, and in fact because how it even clashes with Christianity (that Jesus would study with Hindus and Buddhist) the story has remained denied and undercover even after it's discovery. All of which leads me to conclude one thing: if there was a real Jesus, his nature is unmasked in this tale, a nature that even after two millennium, those with power have been unable to completely suppress.

Jesus was a peaceful man, but he wasn't a brainless sap: he knew when a system was immoral and a fraud, and was unafraid to state it. Welcomed as a Messiah, he gave the finger to his hosts, joined with the outcasts, and urged rejection and rebellion of a disgusting philosophy that deserved to be rejected and rebelled against. At the same time, he told these outcasts that they were worth something, that they did mean something, that they had a right to enjoy their life as it was theirs and theirs alone to enjoy. This time he escaped death, but of course, it wouldn't be the last time he would be a rabble rouser.

With this insight, many teachings of modern "Christianity" should be reevaluated and destroyed. Take, for example, the famous phrase, "Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." The phrase, predictably, has been interpreted to mean that authority must be followed and obeyed. In fact, the phrase is actually defiant, arguing that the coins of Caesar and the monetary rewards of this world are illusionary and beneath those interested in that which is spiritual. Which, of course, is why he often bad-mouthed the rich and told them they would not get to heaven.

Compare this to Mother Teresa, and the ideas she has espoused. She urged blind obedience to corrupt regimes. She glorified suffering and poverty to the point of encouraging it, and thus again promoted blind acceptance to the misery of man-made laws. She praised the wallowing in ignorant blind faith as an opium for the decadence of the ways of the world. And, despite all this, she trotted around the globe, pimping desperately for millions in fund to further her "cause", going out of her way to celebrate those who did even when they were the worst oppressors of her supposedly beloved downtrodden.

Perhaps it is no surprise that the Korporate Media praises her so highly, why heads of state (even Klinton) would speak so kindly of her, why a corrupted church is already plotting to turn her into a saint as her carcass barely begins to rot. Jesus, meanwhile, was hated and feared by lords, portrayed as a devil and an enemy of the priesthood for smashing the moneychangers in the temple.

It should also be no surprise that she settled in India with such a philosophy, the same place that Issa was reputedly run out of. Her philosophy, minus all the Roman Catholic mumbo jumbo, is warmed over caste Hinduism, a philosophy that matches the Aryan system line for line.

Which leads me to wonder: is all this a coincidence? Her order, mind you, was started in 1948, soon after India had gained it's "independence". The independence from the racist, murderous British empire was well deserved: unfortunately, the warped philosophy of the caste system would soon swallow any true freedom.

Is it by pure luck that her philosophy so fully matches that of the Hindu Aryans? Or was it all a calculated, contrived act, an attempt by the Vatican to fill up the power vacuum of the departing Brits by co-opting the traditions and rituals of India?

The church has a long history of co-opting traditions to gain political power: changing the Sabbath to Sunday and celebrating Jesus' birth on December 25 coincided with the practices of the once powerful Mithra sun-god cult. If this is what Mother T and the Vatican secretly had up their sleeve, it wouldn't be the first time this had been done. And let's face it: with the largest population besides China, India would certainly be a golden jewel for the Vatican in it's goal of world domination.

In any case, one thing is clear: she was embraced in India, and one Brahmin priest gushingly declared, "We think of Mother not as a Christian but simply as Mother." A mother she was indeed.

I say it is no accident that where Jesus was attacked, Teresa was glorified. They are polar opposites. He, a man of independence and freedom, she a proponent of a slave mentality. While he denounced the priests and the warlords, she saved her wrath on those poor few who dared not to reproduce, a sin for not providing more slaves for the Unholy Roman Empire. If there is a more anti-Christ philosophy than that espoused by the Mother, I have yet to find it.

Am I being unfair to Mother T? Definitely. She was a woman filled with passion, and that is undeniably admirable. I even suspect that all in all, she did mean well, that it was her intention to only do good. Good intentions, however, often pave the road to hell. I am sad that Mother Teresa died: the end of any life is a tragedy. But her philosophy should not be missed, and it's time to admit just how twisted it really was. Whatever she was as a human being I can't say, but as an icon she was a symbol of destruction. The end of her as a living icon should not be mourned, and I hope her message is buried with her forever on. Good riddance.

Home Page| Related Links| Classified Ads| What's Hot!!! | Regular Issues | Special Issues | Beast Of The Month | Robalini | The Vault | Klearinghouse
Kirby The Konspiracy Boy Says, "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!"