I have a useful rule of thumb – if Tom Friedman says it, it’s total bullshit. Keep this sage advice in mind as he’s been wrong on everything of substance for as long as I can remember. A few that spring to mind.
A few months into the Afghanistan war he declared that ‘America has won the war’ and a little while later that ‘the Taliban are gone’.
Shortly after Putin took power he announced his ‘Tilt Theory of History’ and said that Putin had tilted Russia (‘a huge country’) in the right direction and that it would soon become a glowing example of democracy. In 2005 he warned the Democrats that unless they ‘thought again about Iraq’ (i.e. continue Friedman’s enthusiasm for the war) they’d become ‘irrelevant’.
These pearls of wisdom were of a kind that, in 2001 envisaged ‘critical levels of unemployment in China’ due to massive imports of US wheat. Neither the unemployment nor the imports ever materialised. And where do you leave his two books, paeans to multi culti open borders globalisation? They’ve been just about 180 degrees wrong on everything.
It was in this light that I read a piece in the International Herald Tribune during the week that had him almost wetting himself with joy. He was attending the Intel Science awards (he fancies himself as a bit of a technologist, but what he knows could be written on the back of a stamp) and was overwhelmed by the winners. Why? Because they were all non-American, almost all Chinese or Indian. This was a most wonderful thing for America, he gushed.
Now on first glance I have to say it isn't at all clear to me how this is so good for America. On second glance it’s even less clear.
Tom thinks it’s great because, well, all these clever people wouldn’t be in the US without ‘open borders’ (he’s a great fan of them) and America wouldn’t benefit from their brilliance.
Well, you see, they’ll all come up with great innovative ideas that will be developed in the US, creating wealth and employment for Americans.
But there’s more. He maintains that this ‘proves’ the worth of a liberal immigration policy and of Affirmative Action.
Ok, let’s call his the benign scenario. Now let me propose an alternative one, and you can judge which is more realistic and beneficial for America.
The fact that all the winners were non-Americans is, prima facie, a cause for alarm. Where are all the native Americans? I’ll posit that they’ve been relegated to the sidelines and held back in terms of educational opportunity, research funding, business startup assistance and all the other anti-white male mechanisms now in place under the guise of supporting ‘minorities’. You haven't gained new brilliance, you’ve merely replaced one ethnic group with another.
In terms of creating employment for Americans, Chinese and Indians are famous/notorious for selecting their own ethnic groups to work for them. None of this equal opportunity crap for them. American whites therefore will be taken on only where necessary for US-based employment.
But there’s the rub: How much of it will be US based? If trends to date are anything to go by, most of the heavy workload, and employment, will be outsourced to, well, India and China. And in fact what we’re seeing now is that many such entrepreneurs are actually upping sticks altogether from America and relocating to their ‘home’ countries.
So the net effect is that non-American ethnic groups have received a heavily subsidized education and favourable business start-up funding in the US. The successful ones employ few Americans if they stay, and many will relocate back to their home countries with their expensively developed IP. From where they will compete with companies built up, despite all the discrimination, by ordinary American whites, and operating from America.
Ok, I'm not saying that this is a balanced scenario either – the truth probably lies somewhere between the two. But I'd wager it lies a lot closer to mine that to that of Tom (“he’s got it wrong again!”) Friedman’s