Can you point out where he claims where any language/paradigm will turn water into wine? It seems to me you are attacking a straw man.

The article claims things like "in C++ the bulk of resource management is memory management" and "In C++ ... there is no guarantee that another thread won’t modify it". These are the evidence he uses to backup his conclusion that C++ is in "direct conflict with the requirements of parallel programming".

So he is talking about more than raw computation speed. He is talking about having greater assurance that certain classes of bug are not present. He is talking about less permissiveness, more restrictions, more checks that the programmer. That hardly sounds like water to wine. More like seat belts and health & safety reviews to prevent accidents with power tools.