And that is what I was trying to get at in my rather inept way. The WTO is not specifically American and yet it was the first target--as well as the previous car bomb in the underground garage attempt. I never thought of it in terms of the symbolism, because the WTO is a world organization. Thank you, Law.

Is corporate American seen from the outside as pushing a 'new world order?'

Liz, it's all about symbolisms... It is no mystery that the "tallest" buildings in the world would be knocked down..as opposed to the second or third tallest building in the world being the target of terror. You are assigning too much relevance to whatever the World New Order *is*..which I think is nothing....

CG, If you read the thread from the beginning you'd see that your response really makes no sense at all.

Lizbeth:

Lizbeth you must of made a mistake are you sure you didn't mean Cass instead CG?
I have just been looking at some charts that suggest that the Dow Jones may collapse,some in the banking world are getting frightened are you.There are people that believe the people that were behind the economic conditions in the 1930's that lead to the rise of Hitler are the same ones who have orchestrated this financial mess.

I have said before that the new worlder order does not want a strong America doing the right thing in the world.The elite want America weak and broke,and scared.Who would are argue that today that America is not weak,who would argue that some Americans are not scared about their place in the world.All that'sleft now is the broke part.I have read and heard about the great depression I am betting we are going to have one I hope I am wrong.

I am just wondering if some Americans can't see that their country is been taken from them.Bud that famous beer brand may be brought by the Europeans,can anybody else spot the trend?

That just means Bud will get even worse than it is now, if that's possible.

And that really would be a tragedy.

America is not weak. It's been screwed over by enemies externally and thieves internally, but remains strong. That's why it's such a good country.

It may be too late to save us from another great depression, but come November help will be on the way.

Drink CUB beer. I understand its the main beer at Yankee Stadium. Go Aussie!

Come on, you guys! This here is serious stuff!

No, Cass, I didn't mean you. I'm beginning to understand a lot of what you post -- sort of. And, yes, I am somewhat frightened by the state of the world's economy. I say 'somewhat' because, other than the price of gas, it hasn't really hit my family, yet. I also believe there are serious developments being made in the search for clean and renewable emergy sources and, if were to come to an emergency, the American people would demand that the search be speeded up.

There are several definitions of New World Order--everything from a conspiracy by former members of the Skull and Bones Society of Yale University to changes that society would have to make to adapt itself so as to embrace a new world order brought about by a state of economic emergency.

For example, the Federal government taxes every gallon of gasoline sold. That money is meant to maintain Federal highways. Just today, I read that, with the real reduction in gas sales due to its rising cost, the maintainance fund could be completely depleted by 2009. One way of forstalling that could be instituting tolls. A lot of people would protest.

I also read today that power-producing companies are once again up in arms about clean air restrictions on their power plants. The answer to that could be gearing up to transition from coal-burning energy plants to plants equipped to use alternative fuels. That may mean that coal-mining companies would lose, but that could be assuaged by building safe nuclear power plants or wind farms on the land to which they own mineral rights.

This is all a part of the new world order I envision for the future. What will we, as a world society, have to change in order to adapt to a totally new world without oil?

Does it ever occur to anyone that when today's national leaders get a tear in their eye and talk about the "New World Order" that is just around the corner, that they aren't talking about the expectation of an actual tangible governmental structure? Could it be that they are merely indulging in some philosophical/allegorical musings revolving around the desire for improved international understanding and cooperation for the betterment of humanity?

Just as when Ronald Reagan referred to the "Shining City on the Hill" he wasn't talking about wrapping Denver, Colorado in aluminum foil on a cloudless sunny day. He was talking of restoring Americato a position of respect and influence in world affairs as well as economic and social health internally.

You suppose that latter day references to a "New World Order" is just a world leader's way of engaging in a hand-holding chorus of "Kumbaya?"

Does it ever occur to anyone that the concept of New World Order (whatever that is?) serves to benefit the bank account and fame of one David Ickes?

David Icke was born a long time after the first and second world wars. The phrase was first used after WWI by Woodrow Wilson as I said in my OP. He was thinking of a way--the League of Nations--to try to prevent another devastating war. The LoN didn't work but, following WWII, the United Nations was formed. Some people say the UN is also failing. Mikail Gorbachev used the phrase at the end of the Cold War and it's possible that he was speaking primarily to the Russian and American people--saying, in effect, that it was time for governments to start trusting each other.

CG, in no way does this have anything to do with David Ickes ravings of reptilian aliens taking over the governance of the world--unless that's your only definition of 'new world order.' If it is, that's your choice. It isn't mine.

Nor is my definition of the phrase based on a conspiracy theory of elitists who belonged to the Skull and Bone Society. Nor, Ray, does it have anything to do with Obama's campaign slogan. (I know you didn't mention Obama specifically, but the implication was there.)

I would really like to know what a 'new world order' would mean to people when the world is freed of its reliance on oil as the only convenient energy source.