This is as in-your-face as it can get...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Edumakated
a reply to: Gryphon66

I did look at that bit from AP.

My thoughts on that are:

First, no one in this day and age uses the phrase "new world order" in relation to any government action of any kind at any level unless they mean NWO. That phrase conjures one image and one only, and its not new zoning regulations.

Second, the reason AP is saying its not real is that they allege the video claims Lightfoot herself is going to attempt to overthrow the government with a coup. That seems to be a bit of a straw man if you ask me.

Lastly, I know city officials have to uphold city ordinance. But in my entire life I have never heard it referred to as, "pledging allegiance to the new world order."

No matter how far fetched someone may think it is, that sounds suspicious. I stand by my original assessment. It could be as simple as a plan for sustainable development, or, it could be used to nefarious ends. This is Chicago we are talking about...

AP has their opinion and they are entitled to it. And I have mine.

If you watch the video in context with the AP information, it is pretty clear she is being facetious (tongue in cheek) when she says New World Order. She is referencing the culture of how the city does business with Alderman.

It is like saying "there is a new sheriff in town" or "we are going to blow it up and start over". She isn't being literal but trying to emphasize there will be a significant change in culture of the organization and you either are on board or you aren't.

She doesn't mean New World Order in how us conspiracy theorist tend to think about it.

a reply to: Serdgiam

"Sustainable development" is right out of Agenda 21 which many believe is the play book for the NWO.

I don't know about this. Using the phrase 'new world order' and saying it means everyday business is like calling someone a nazi then saying you didn't mean it 'that way'. So, exactly what way did you mean the thing that has only one recognised meaning?

a reply to: Edumakated

Facetious or not..

Zoning, regulatory agencies, and city planning are one of the major pillars that the so-called "new world order" is intended to be built.

The info is all out there, direct from the source(s). The same sources, mind, that have played major roles in this current pandemic and are using all of the same tactics & phrases that they always have, working towards all of the same goals.

Now though, there is just another tool in the toolbox (The Virus) to determine how, when, and why people move around.. how and where they live.. which businesses can remain in business.. etc.

i didnt even have to scroll.....when i saw the video ready to be clicked....haha

her wild eyes inventing some kind of evil crap to spout.....didn't click the vid....her eyes....ha

I discern spirits......those perps.....know we are at teotwawki.......a limited nuke war involving Israel this summer means we are here

a reply to: Edumakated

I saw the video and I read the AP piece. I am not convinced.

The idea that any government official would use such a suggestive and suspicious term haphazardly is hard to swallow.

With people taking transcripts of speeches by politicians and looking for substitution codes to find "the real message" in the words, is it so hard to imagine that NWO actually means NWO, whether it addresses alderman privilege or not?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Serdgiam

"Sustainable development" is right out of Agenda 21 which many believe is the play book for the NWO.

I don't know about this. Using the phrase 'new world order' and saying it means everyday business is like calling someone a nazi then saying you didn't mean it 'that way'. So, exactly what way did you mean the thing that has only one recognised meaning?

So when someone says "Grammar Nazi" do you think they literally mean Nazi?

Again, she was referencing the culture of how business is done with Alderman. It is a HUGE shift. If she said we are going to blow everything up and start over, would you think she meant that literally?

She is saying she is going to implement new policies and culture that is different from the current situation. The context is Alderman have too much power and leads to corruption. She is saying the "New World Order" is going to be the politics around Aldermen in the city and how they interact with the interest in their ward.

In other words, we are creating a "New World Order" (tongue in cheek to emphasize significant culture change) where Aldermen can't extort businesses by threatening to block zoning variances.

Look, I am believe in conspiracy theorist. I am certainly no leftist or fan of Lori LIghtfoot. However, when you see the context of the video it is clear what she means. I expect this kind of nonsense from MSNBC and leftist. We can't stoop to their level.

I guess we can believe now that when Trump said "grab 'em by the pootang" he really meant it... context be damned.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Its a marketing term that doesnt necessarily mean "that one recognized meaning." Just like how "environmentalism" has come to mean "give politicians money."

If someone broke all the windows in my house using a crowbar, but said they were just giving the glass "kisses," does it change the act itself?

Words and actions dont always line up. And very few will actually look into beyond going "oh, how could anyone be against developing sustainably?" For those that give it a bit closer glance.. there are nice, easy to consume bullet points beyond that.

But, if we dig a bit deeper.. start asking questions like "how are they going to do this?" "What have they been doing?" ..it gets murky fast and that isnt helped by just how extensive and comprehensive something like Agenda 21 is..

Quickest way I would describe it is modern feudalism with modern technology, "for your own good." Replete with PR DoubleSpeak and technofascism.

a reply to: Nickn3

Off the top of my head I would say Hillary!

a reply to: IAMTAT

changed my mind again

a reply to: opethPA
Yes, but when McMahon bought out the WCW or which ever, the NWO brand came with it did it not?

I watched wrestling off and on for years since I was a kid back in the fifties. Haystack Calhoun and Gorgeous George and all the rest of the pencil neck geeks. Then again in the sixties for a while. Then again in the eighties for a couple of years and then again some where in the nineties when my teenage son said ''dad, you gotta see this guy Goldberg''. I checked it out and was sucked in again for a couple of years

So my knowledge of the NWO was sparse but over the years I watched and even into the 2000s there would be some remnant of that brand being used.

I feel like that's how they hire and train cops and other servants for decades.

Almost like in Blade with vampires running the cities. Only with satanists.

She literally looks like a voodoo zombie

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: opethPA
Yes, but when McMahon bought out the WCW or which ever, the NWO brand came with it did it not?

I watched wrestling off and on for years since I was a kid back in the fifties. Haystack Calhoun and Gorgeous George and all the rest of the pencil neck geeks. Then again in the sixties for a while. Then again in the eighties for a couple of years and then again some where in the nineties when my teenage son said ''dad, you gotta see this guy Goldberg''. I checked it out and was sucked in again for a couple of years

So my knowledge of the NWO was sparse but over the years I watched and even into the 2000s there would be some remnant of that brand being used.

I'll start another thread on this..dont want to hijack the OP.. =)

i cannot believe they use the term so nonchalantly.

you cannot tell me that these politicians dont know EXACTLY what NEW WORLD ORDER means!

a reply to: Edumakated

You have presented a plausible scenario in which New World Order can mean a new way of doing things. I presented a plausible scenario in which New World Order means New World Order. The existence of alternatives neither proves nor disproves anything.

Sustainable development is the core of Agenda 21 and has been believed to be the NWO playbook since the early 90's. Lightfoot may have meant a new way of doing things as you stated. However, that new way of doing things could be intentionally aligned with the NWO way of doing things - as presented in the framework of Agenda 21 which specifically addresses the departments and offices she refers to. If compliance is mandatory it would be necessary to eliminate stumbling blocks like a single alderman who refuses play ball. She already indicated that people to run the programs and their deputies would be handpicked based on their willingness to pledge allegiance to the NWO. Think about that - hand picked heads of agencies based on who will pledge allegiance to the new way of doing things, the NWO.

Lastly, using three distinct phrases: New World Order, mandatory compliance, and pledge allegiance to, sounds a hell of a lot more like an NWO theory than a new model for establishing village ordinance.

I respect your opinion and the thought you put into it but I think you stopped one step short of the mark. She may have been quasi-facetious, but she still may be touting the NWO as well.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
the 'new world order' goes in the same trashcan i threw the 'new normal'. i will resist.[/quote

edit on 18-5-2020 by slatesteam because: (no reason given)

New World Order is 80's speak, the real players are saying "One World Order".

a reply to: mazzroth
and 'Global Governance'

a reply to: 0zzymand0s
That Davos business is the most nefarious and terrifying stuff I've seen.. Have you seen the bit about the opsids and Nita Faraday's ideas for mankind? That place, when they are alllll there, is what's gotta be nuked. As soon as possible.

There was a plan written by these wackos a long time ago.

And when things dont go as planned they get really nasty.

Look at these eleted officials ,nothing but low educated, low intelligence clowns.

They have a clear agenda