This is a preview (rather than a review) of a book that I am about to read.  How can one preview an unread book?  In this case I have not read the book but I have (somewhat) read the author.  Thomas L. Friedman is author of, "The World is Flat" a book that is raising eyebrows around the United States of America.  I came across some comments made by the author and was compelled to write this preview.

Speaking with Nayan Chanda of "YaleGlobal Online" (a publication of the Yale Center for the study of globalization) Friedman made a number of points that raised questions about the assertion the "the world is flat".  First and foremost, it appears that author Friedman is a proponent of a "flat world".  Secondly,  he appears to desire a movement away from the dominance of nation states (as discussed in his book, "Lexus and the Olive Tree").  Thirdly, he seems to view those who question or oppose the "flat world" theory (and it is still mostly "theory") as being either criminals or terrorists.  Fourthly,  he appears to advocate the marginalization of any who oppose the flat world movement (this is truly troubling).  Fifthly, he seems to postulate that once a nation becomes a part of what he would characterize as the flat world supply chain, fighting against or leaving the supply system would result in devastating consequences (to the objecting or departing member).  Thus, it appears (to me) that Friedman's flat earth could be described as an international trade (or economic) system that dictates the policies and directions that all nations must follow.  The mere fact that he postulates devastating consequences for opposing or leaving the system, telegraphs the expectation of total submission and acquiescence to the dictates of the system.  This is worse than Marxism, Nazism and Communism rolled up in one.  Added to the foregoing (and probably more important) would the the subordination of social, national, ethnic and religious interests to the overarching supply chain system.

Friedman postulates that quality environment, investment laws, education and infrastructure are the main pillars on which each nation's flat world foundation would rest.  He contends that China and India (identified by him as two fifths of the world) are the current leading players in the "flat world".  Companies such as Wipro and InfoSys are highlighted along with WalMart and UPS.  He seems to use those companies to "prove" that the "flat world" exists and is the only viable direction of the future.  Those who have not adopted that view are (according to Friedman) silly, lazy, or out to lunch on old theories.  He goes on to lay on the leaders of the "flat world" the obligation of bringing others into the "flat world".

While admitting that his "flat world" (especially as shown in the experience of WalMart) has some problems (poor benefits for employees, for example), he seems to see those as being overridden by lower costs for consumers and greater returns for investors.  One may conclude that the lower costs for consumers element would validate the "flat earth" system and make it acceptable.  However, there is more to it than that. When a nation becomes a slave of an economic or trade system, other critical pillars of its civilization become slaves to the economic system.  (This is clearly seen in Friedman's postulation of the severe penalty an opposing or departing nation would pay.)  National, social, ethnic and religious interests would be pawns of the economic system.  This seems to be the hidden agenda (thus my opposition).  How does one conquer a powerful nation like the United States of America?  Trick it into a global economic system that will eventually dictate to every country in the world the nature, character and content of its internal politics (by supply chain tyranny).

Globalization as postulated by Mr. Friedman appears to place economics above God.  In essence, the supply chain would become the controlling power in that new world order.  Oppose it and you are marginalized.  This is not surprising (as many in the United States of America are currently being tricked into atheism).  A tyrannical supply chain system cannot coexist with an Almighty God.  Thus, the proponents of globalization find it absolutely necessary to either overcome the idea of an Almighty God (as is the Christian God) and replace such an idea with either atheism or polytheism (neither of which could effectively overrule the ("almighty" supply chain system).  So, the stakes are high, very high.  The proponents of globalization know that and (thus) have declared the "flat earth" a "fact".  Now they are seeking to condition the minds of people and enlist the assistance of journalists, academics and others.

Am I against international cooperation?  No.  Am I against lower prices for consumers?  No.  Am I against higher profits for investors?  No.  Am I against the marginalization of nations and individuals?  Yes.  Am I against a tyrannical economic system?  Yes.  Am I against the conquering of the the United States of America?  Yes.

Do the major players really want a truly "flat earth".  I don't think so.  Rather, what I think they want is a system that gives them more influence and control over more resources of the earth.  Author Friedman mentions how the internet and access to it is flattening the earth.  However, those of us who have used the internet for ten years or more have seen a definite invasion by control forces.  First, there was the email situation.  In 1995 we could send email to anyone.  In 2005 the powers that be have changed the rules.  Now it's almost dangerous to send email to anyone you don't know or with whom you don't have some type of preexisting relationship.  This is a prime example of shutting off communication opportunity.  The entire world is being penalized because of the abuse of a few.  This is indefensible.  Technology and enforcement mechanisms exist that could be focused on the offenders of spam and the remainder of internet users could retain their rights to communicate.  No, the controllers needed a way to "unlevel" the playing field and tyrannical email rules are that way.  Secondly,  the bigger the internet grows and the more expensive it becomes to make one's presence (on the internet) known, the more "unflat" or unlevel the playing field becomes.  Most of the major search engines now charge for site listings (they were once free [and were not receiving nearly as much ancillary advertising revenue]).  So how "flat" is that helping to make the internet?  The naive will buy the "flat earth" line, but thinkers will take a good and in-depth look into the elements beings developed and will, I believe, find much about which to be seriously concerned.

I am competent enough scholar of Biblical Prophecy to know that there will eventually be a type of AntiChrist global one-world-order.  Every other prophecy of the Holy Bible has manifested in its season and so will the AntiChrist and the one-world-order.  That said, I know of no obligation on my part to hasten the time of fulfillment.  "When the time is full" it will occur.  However, just because the "flat world globalists" are saying the time is full does not necessarily mean that the time is indeed "full".  But, if it is, so be it.

Now I will read the book (and hope to find that my misgivings as expressed in this article are in error).

References

Chanda, Nayan, (2005).
"Wake Up and Face the Flat Earth - Thomas L. Friedman".  YaleGlobal Online.
Retrieved April 31, 2005, from http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5581 .

Ibid. (2003)
"Globalization After September 11th"
Retrieved April 31, 2005, from http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/video.jsp .

---

Home