Eight Reasons Why I Am Convinced Innovation ≠ Miscegenation

I was cruising through the Twitter feed of The Washington Post the other day – that sad, pathetic, sub-Community Calendar tabloid desperately trying to get just a little more mileage out of its unwarranted Woodward n’ Bernstein reputation of nearly a half century ago. Isn’t that what all the hepcats are doing these days? Lo and behold, I was presented with one of those grotty pieces of pseudo-economic cosmopolitan claptrap – built around yet another ridiculously self-serving ‘impartial study’ – which is one of several reasons why it’s been close to twenty years since I have actually purchased a newspaper. As it is a short piece, it is transcribed here in its entirety:

American innovation has been the envy of the world for the last century. Our ability to discover scientific breakthroughs, invent disruptive technologies and build successful companies that make those advances broadly available has been unparalleled. This creativity is the product of a culture that is uniquely open to new ideas, that encourages and rewards risk taking, that values people for what they achieve, not where they come from. It is also the result of a constant supply of talented people from outside the United States, many of whom came to this country seeking world-class education and an open society where they could thrive.

That is why our public universities have overwhelmingly spoken up against the recent travel bans President Trump issued through executive order. While changes in immigration policy may very well be necessary, any moves that create additional barriers to the free flow of business and educational exchange threaten to erode our economic advantage and negatively impact our future.

Consider this: all six Nobel Prize winners in the United States last year were immigrants, as were 40 percent of all American Nobel recipients in physics, chemistry, medicine and physiology since 2000. Microsoft is led by an Indian, as is Google, which was co-founded by a Russian. Tesla is the creation of a South African who’s now also revolutionizing space aircraft. The online shopping company eBay was started by a French national of Iranian descent, and the iPhone was designed by a Brit. Immigrants or their children started more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies, according to the Kauffman Foundation, and more than 50 percent of billion-plus startups had at least one foreign-born founder.

A 2007 study by researchers from Duke University, the University of California at Berkeley and the Kauffman Foundation found that more than half of the foreign-born founders of American tech companies initially came to the United States to study. In some critical fields, such as engineering and computer science, foreign nationals already account for more than half of all doctoral degrees granted in America.

The influx of international students into our universities does not take away resources from American students. On the contrary, foreign students contribute much-needed tuition dollars and have a positive impact on our local economies. The roughly 1 million foreign students attending U.S. colleges and universities last year contributed more than $32 billion to the U.S. economy – double the amount of 10 years prior – and supported more than 400,000 U.S. jobs. International students strengthen our campuses by creating additional opportunities for American students to develop a more global mindset and build relationships that will prepare them to be more effective in an increasingly global marketplace.

Despite these benefits, the advantage that American universities enjoy in attracting foreign talent should not be taken for granted. The perception of openness is just as important as the legal reality of openness. Whenever the United States is seen as less open and welcoming to people and ideas, this dynamic source of innovative talent suffers, as we saw in the years following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In 2000, the United States attracted approximately 23 percent of all international students seeking to study outside their home country. After the attacks, changes in immigration policy and a belief that the United States was a less welcoming dropped that share to 17 percent. Only in recent years has our percentage of international students returned to 2000 levels.

This loss was others’ gain. In the decade or so after 9/11, when the proportion of international students who came to the United States was shrinking, other English-speaking countries experienced rapid growth international students. The United Kingdom expanded its pool from 11 percent in 2000 to 18 percent in 2014; Australia expanded from 12.5 percent to 18.2 percent in that time, and Canada expanded its pool from less than 5 percent to nearly 10 percent.

Drastic changes in U.S. immigration policy could once again encourage international students to look elsewhere. Current students from the six countries directly affected by the latest version of the travel ban may find other places to continue their education. This is especially true for those with single-entry visas who are effectively pre-empted from leaving the United States because they will not be allowed to re-enter. Similarly, other potential international students may decide to pursue their education outside the United States, as we appear to shut our doors to individuals of certain backgrounds.

Few would argue against carefully vetting all who wish to enter the United States, and preventing anyone who represents a clear threat from reaching our shores. But that shouldn’t mean shutting our borders to one of our main sources of innovation and growth. Openness has been this country’s strength since its founding. Let us not lose sight of how we got here.

Boy, that’s some hard-hitting truthiness right there, isn’t it, sports fans? I haven’t seen so much persuasion since the last time I was in the Jane Austen Bookstore. In all seriousness, though, how is it that one idealistic op-ed could get so much so fundamentally wrong? Let us count the ways:

1. An Erroneous Interpretation of Past American Successes

Yes, there was a time when American innovation was the envy of the world, but sorry, Mr. Author-Man, that era was pretty much over by the time Henry Ford’s assembly line organizational structure ceased to be a novelty. The nineteenth century represented the true pinnacle of American leadership in this department, thanks to the invention of and/or improvements made in such diverse fields as cotton ginning, steam power, canal and railway construction, and telegraph/telephone communications. Alas, as these were all produced in a culture still primarily Anglo-Celtic and Protestant in makeup, they cannot be allowed to take precedence over later ‘innovations’ that came about during the more ethnically and religiously variegated society that emerged in the wake of Jewess Emma Lazarus’s hideous stanza of ‘Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’. The new arrivals, many of them Judaic, preferred to concentrate their genius in such civilization-enriching fields as finance, chemical polymer production, household gadgetry, and entertainment – the creation of true wealth wrought in the preceding years was used as a base upon which was constructed a simulacrum of convenience and distraction to bamboozle a native populace increasingly weary of a covenantal relationship with their God and looking for some New Thing. Progress ho! And while significant developments were made within such spheres as aerodynamics, rocketry, and computers from the mid-twentieth century onward, these can be attributed to the sizable component of Germans and Eastern Europeans working in these sectors, with their natural aptitude towards structural problem-solving in engineering and mathematics. Throwing a polymorphous mass of humanity into a cauldron and expecting great things to result is no more sophisticated than expecting flies to spontaneously generate from garbage heaps.

Also, Mr. Author-Man, when you say that the culture of the U.S. ‘is uniquely open to new ideas, encourages and rewards risk taking, and values people for what they achieve, not where they come from’, it is a safe assumption that you’re speaking of the modern leviathan god-state of Murika, not the original thirteen colonies, considering how adverse to cultural heterogeneity the founding fathers were. In that case, the ‘new ideas’ this benevolent union craves above all are those in the realm of social engineering, the ‘risk taking’ that is rewarded is that which encourages white Christian genocide, and the people who can ‘achieve’ that are ones we don’t want our neighborhood ladies welcoming with hugs and homemade pies (halal, of course!). So I tell you what: why don’t you and a coterie of your lib pals put these poor huddled masses up in your own grandiloquent villas in your gated communities till they can get on their feet? Then you will be able to perceive their inherent worth firsthand, and as a bonus The Atlantic Monthly or somebody will laud you as philanthropists. Could there possibly be any higher praise than that?

2. Tired and Stale Libertarian Posturing

The unholy coupling of open, unfettered borders with open, unfettered morality is so mainstream now one would really wish edgy libertarians would find themselves a new hobbyhorse to climb aboard in order to be supremely annoying. Thus the inclusion of the mandatory admonition: ‘Any moves that create additional barriers to the free flow of business and educational exchange threaten to erode our economic advantage and negatively impact our future.’ The metastasis masquerading as ‘economic growth’ must continue at all costs. Yawn. Moving on…

3. Laughable Naivete

Ho-ho, silly Author-Man! Do you honestly believe that bloated, corrupt, publicly-funded universities rotten with tenure actually give a toss about ‘American competitiveness’, and that’s the SOLE reason they’re in one accord in opposing the Trump travel ban? Apparently he’s been reading too many Horatio Alger boy-makes-good stories again (shorn of accompanying illustrations to camouflage the racial character of the ambitious of the nineteenth century), and believes that Manuel swam the Rio Grande in order to fulfill his lifelong dream of being accepted into the astrophysics program at MIT. And, hey: if the issue here is strictly economic, what explains the unanimity of opposition emanating from all of the country’s liberal arts colleges and even more liberal seminaries?  Also, would it be impolitic to point out that to lobby for more aliens on campus is rank preferentialism, considering your faculties also eagerly promote the aborting of our native stock, or even the suicide of their current white student body?

In a similar wide-eyed ‘wowzers!’ vein is Author-Man’s admiration for the high preponderance of immigrants among recent Nobel prize winners. Golly, so a body of globalists has been shown to have a bias towards globalist causes over the past twenty years? What a shocker! What next? Hollywood giving Oscars out to movies about black slavery?

4. Racial and Cultural Relativism

Author-Man sees no distinction between Indians, Russians, South Africans, Iranians, or Brits. All are from the Land of Faraway, and hence all enjoy equal esteem within his own personal hierarchy. It’s really quite stunning, when one considers that white nationalists in general and kinists in particular have inordinately more interest in the makeup of different cultures than loudly-expostulating cultural Marxists do. They’re only concerned with turning the peoples of the world into a uniform shade of gray, and that very quickly – hence their endorsement of amalgamating white with the most ebon shades of black as their expedited mixture of choice.

This relativism extends into the achievements he attributes to each of these immigrants. You will forgive me if an Indian ‘leading’ Microsoft and Google (I guess Gates and Ellison are too busy getting together to consolidate their plans for worldwide vaccination poisoning to worry much about their companies’ day-to-day management) doesn’t strike me as half as impressive as a South African starting his own automotive company and ‘revolutionizing space aircraft’. The latter could legitimately be called an innovator while the former is just a Man in a Gray Flannel Suit, with a gray turban to match. Also – and I know this will come as a shock – the South African (one Elon Musk) is of the Boer variety rather than of the Zulu, although Mr. Author-Man sure takes pains to hide that fact. Why else would he go the anonymity route in putting forth his honor roll of immigrants?[1. This is not to suggest that I am an admirer of Musk. I am not. His enthusiasm for human-robotic melding and his imperialist designs on Mars creep me right out and are signals of a reprobate mind. This does not downplay his engineering talents, though he uses them in rebellion against God. Tragic.]

The laughable naivete of point 3 also carries over into point 4. He lauds 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies being started by immigrants or their children? Considering the corporations that make up that index are in agreement with white Christian extermination, why should this impress me? Not to mention that immigrants and their children are also far likelier to bring in scores of their countrymen for a cheap supply of labor, and guess what? They sure as hell aren’t going to be among the 40 percent starting Fortune 500 companies.

And what of the fact that immigrants originating world-renowned companies are still very much an anomaly? Most African/Asian immigrants who do start companies on these shores are doing so for use as money laundering centres for illicit drug and prostitution operations. If you think Rupjeet is relocating halfway across the world to open a pizza joint, you’re probably stupid enough to keep renewing your subscription to the Washington Post every year.

5. Dubious Statistics from Dubious Sources

You gotta be kidding me – I’m expected to take any stats reported by the (((Kauffman))) Foundation seriously?? Especially when a quick visit to the organization’s web page informs me that it was founded by Judaic pharmaceutical magnate and Kansas City Royals owner Ewing Kauffman, for the purpose of providing ‘disadvantaged youths’ (read: non-whites) with entrepreneurial opportunities?? So we can automatically write off all numbers brought forth by this outfit as agenda-driven.

The one number-crunch that could conceivably be described as a hard economic figure – as opposed to a sociological puffball – presented here is: ‘The roughly 1 million foreign students attending U.S. colleges and universities last year contributed more than $32 billion to the U.S. economy – double the amount of 10 years prior – and supported more than 400,000 U.S. jobs.’ Mysteriously, Mr. Author-Man doesn’t see fit to provide a source for this. The reason for that is plain: a quick Google search rapidly documents that this figure was originally published on the ‘StudyTravel Network’ web page, and was sourced exclusively through ‘NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Benefits from International Students’. Yes, that sounds like a heapin’ helpin’ of impartiality to me, all right. This is confirmed by a quick visit to NAFSA’s website, whereby we are immediately treated to the group’s mission statement: ‘NAFSA is the world’s largest nonprofit association dedicated to international education and exchange, working to advance policies and practices that ensure a more interconnected, peaceful world today and for generations to come.’ Mr. Author-Man would presumably raise all kinds of secular-holy hell if he ever came across an article on the Holocaust that contained statistics gleaned from the Institute for Historical Review, but obviously he cannot be held to the same standards when he’s helping to fight the good fight against Christofascism.

Also take note that 1 million foreign students ‘supported’ 400,000 jobs. It didn’t say anything about their helping to create those ‘jobs’, or that they themselves took those ‘jobs’, but that 400,000 ‘jobs’ were supported by their presence. Where were these positions of highest import? Why, in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in diversity offices on university campuses from sea to shining sea, at NAFSA, etc. Y’know – the pillars of any economic powerhouse.

His putrid taste in references also leads directly to the next point:

6. Circular Reasoning Based Upon a Faulty Presupposition

Limitless immigration to these shores must theoretically increase the odds of some net technological benefit being brought to fruition over here, and thus constitutes a net gain to society, mmkay? It is only by establishing this vaguely positivist hypothesis as his article’s core that we can be properly horrified by the dire warnings he attempts to traumatize us with if we don’t go along with his assertions:

In 2000, the United States attracted approximately 23 percent of all international students seeking to study outside their home country. After the attacks, changes in immigration policy and a belief that the United States was a less welcoming dropped that share to 17 percent!!!

The United Kingdom expanded its pool from 11 percent in 2000 to 18 percent in 2014; Australia expanded from 12.5 percent to 18.2 percent in that time, and Canada expanded its pool from less than 5 percent to nearly 10 percent!!!!!!!! Why aren’t you writing your Congressman, UN representative, or Arapaho shaman and demanding immediate action to remedy this????????

Sure, if you agree with the article’s position you’re going to be up in arms over this dangerous lagging-behind. If not, though, you’re more likely to be shrugging your shoulders and saying ‘who gives a rip?’, if not cheering these numbers as a positive trend. Thus, this article is doing nothing more than preaching to the choir. Unfortunately, I am not in this choir. They wouldn’t have me, due to the fact that I don’t sing soprano.

7. Reassurances of Restraint so Toothless as to Be Insulting

Why bother adding a don’t-worry postscript like ‘Few would argue against carefully vetting all who wish to enter the United States, and preventing anyone who represents a clear threat from reaching our shores’ when your entire argument hinges on negating that very diligence? I knew Enoch Powell, Mr. Author-Man. Enoch Powell was a friend of mine. Believe me, Mr. Author-Man, you’re no Enoch Powell.

8. Personal Bias

Well, now, let’s just hold the phone for a minute here – who, precisely, is Mr. Author-Man anyway? Well, that’s the cherry atop this entire syncretic sundae. We are presented with his author blurb at the very end:

Ángel Cabrera, president of George Mason University, is the first native of Spain to lead a U.S. university. He is chairman of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities Commission on International Initiatives.

I think perhaps he might have had a vested interest in penning this piece, combining his natural affinity with his Latino brethren south of the border with his obvious forced and artificial love for all the other non-Anglo peoples of the world. Still not convinced? Have a look at his Wiki entry, which documents his running the gamut of participation in all sorts of globalist pet projects: Fulbright scholarship, honor of ‘Young Global Fellow’ bestowed upon him by the World Economic Council, membership in the Aspen Institute, Inter-American Dialogue, Council on Foreign Relations, blah blah blah…. This guy must be on the short list to preside over a future Bilderberg meeting! Given that he isn’t even fifty yet, time is definitely on his side.

Every once in a while, you run across an article in a mainstream source proclaiming that rumors of the death of the ‘dinosaur media’ have been greatly exaggerated. If this is the best indoctrination that the vaunted molders of public opinion can come up with these days, it would appear that they underwent extinction five years ago yet were blithely unaware of it.

Tweet