“If you make people think they’re thinking, they’ll love you, but if you really make them think, they’ll hate you.”
Watch out Canada! B.C.’s Kim Campbell is running on her record and “charisma without substance” is becoming a haunting reminder of her past. Described as the “Darling of the media,” and “the Madonna of Canadian politics,” she grabbed headlines as, one by one, would-be Tory leadership candidates stepped aside, seeming to sense that Campbell was the “chosen” one. Intelligent, politically correct and at times robotomorphic, she seems like the perfect Candidate to bring Canada into the New World Order of global government. Does she have a hidden agenda, or is she merely another pawn in the game?
Her advisors would like to sweep her past mistakes under the rug, suggesting she has changed. They have created a new image, a new icon to be revered by the many too naïve to understand the timetable of the selected programmed “elite” few.
After a very dull performance in the first debate of the progressive Conservative leadership campaign on April 15, it was evident Campbell’s attitude has not changed even after her successful climb to the top. Saying she hoped people were not bored with the topics in debate, her blasé attitude was a reflection of the earlier years. In 1986 she told a reporter that she (Campbell) was born gifted and preferred the company of her intellectual equals. Now responding to Jean Charest’s criticism that she lacked substance in her policy statements, she said she’s accomplished more in four years as an M.P. than Charest has in eight.
In an interview with the Vancouver sun, University of B.C. political scientist Phil Resnick commented on Campbell’s swift rise to fame, stating, “The public persona now being portrayed is of this bright and compassionate person. As one who watched her performance in the mid-80s in Vancouver, I find that last adjective extremely hard to swallow.”
So do many others, Phil Rankin, who was a trustee when Campbell served on the Vancouver school board in the early eighties, harshly criticized her in a recent interview. She was a bully, she was a braggart, she was a snob…she felt she was superior to everyone who was on the board for reasons I could never quite figure out…she didn’t do much as a chairperson of the board…for all of her independence of mind, she always sided with the status quo and never sided with the underdog on any issue.”
Perhaps the turning point in her career came in 1986 at the Social Credit Leadership convention. In her speech she attacked Bill Vander Zalm, with her now famous words, “charisma without substance is a dangerous thing.” He emerged the victor. Campbell finished dead last. But she had passed her first test. Running on the “Win with Bill Vander Zalm” ticket she decided to work from inside the Socred Ranks and the rest is history. In 1988 she would again oppose Vander Zalm and break ranks over his strong pro-life stand.
Later that year she abandoned the Social Credit party for what she perceived a better position. With unprecedented support from the “Big Bluchine” she was elected to Parliament and quickly escalated through the ranks, to set her up for her eventual coronation as conservative leader.
With traditional family values in jeopardy, Campbell holds little hope for those trying tot salvage what’s left of society’s frayed fabric. She won few points last year with her statement, “…People are going to have to recognize we are full-fledged human beings and that a lot of the traditional, classical models of family life that go with political life don’t necessarily apply.”
Through all the reams of articles written recently in the daily press about Campbell, many are unaware of the sleaze factor orchestrating her campaign. The notorious back room boys who will stop at nothing to accomplish their allotted task, continue to spin the web of deceit. Her own chief of staff, Ray Castelli, was working before the ’88 election. I personally witnessed this spin doctor and his bank of “Brown shirts” (Tory Youth) take the art of political backstabbing to new heights. He had no qualms about disrupting the democratic process in constituency candidate meetings in order to serve his meetings in order to serve his masters. According to my sources in Ottawa he hasn’t changed.
Neither has Campbell. Phil Rankin insists that Campbell will continue to bluster and become arrogant. “You’ll see eventually she’ll lose it.” Left-wing political pundit and gay activist, Stan Persky, had some interesting observations about Campbell, “I don’t see how you could distinguish her from a Liberal. And – I have to whisper this – on social policy she’s not so different from the NDP.”
There is hardly a mention of her Masonic ties. She was once B.C. Lower Mainland Sweetheart of Demolay (Freemasonry’s Young Mens Organization). Space does not permit discussion of Freemasonry’s involvement in the governments of the free-world. However, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies by William T. Still from Huntington House answers most questions. (This is in no way meant to discredit the good work of many Freemasons but merely to express concern about the part of their society that most never experience).
So start thinking! Perhaps there is a little known agenda for the New World Order. Maybe we’ll all inadvertently join the way of the new age mysticism. However, before we make that irreversible trip we deserve the right to make an informed choice.
So if those orchestrating Campbell’s campaign have nothing to hide, why hide it? Or do they have an unsubstantiated fear that the “ordinary” people simply would not understand her agenda?