Paul Tudor Jones – What He Should’ve Said

fgvDDSV - Copy

At some panel discussion consisting of rich, white, middle-aged men at some school talking about something which has nothing to do with the question below Paul Tudor Jones on the panel received this “question” from the audience:

“Please reflect on the makeup of the panel; rich, white, middle-aged men, who were mentored by the same and what it takes for someone different to have seat at the table and find and share their voices from a powerful place.”

In other words “How comes alls you gots is white folk up there?”

or, “where’s da womenz?”

and “Whatchya gonna do about it?”

To that Paul Tudor Jones should have told whoever wrote that question to f-off. He should have said that and not commented on it at all because the “question” isn’t a question. It’s primarily an insinuation that one is racist, and sexist and even “ageist” and “elitist” in this particular phrasing, and secondarily that there is also an obligation to take positive steps in changing the “makeup of the panel” in this case.

This particular tactic has been around a long time. It’s meant to instil guilt and shame not only to the people it’s directed against but to the observer. The questioner is saying this person, group, organization etc. is racist/sexist and they better do something to diversify i.e. not be all white and definitely not all white and male.

It is always put against whites. It’s often put against white males.

So to my fellow whites and my fellow males don’t answer such questions as if they were genuine. Whether the questioner themselves are even aware of it, what they are doing is trying to instill guilt and shame in you merely for being white, merely for being a man and god forbid finding brotherhood within that. They are also telling you that you can’t do that, you can’t be all white, you can’t have all males. You better break that up and “diversify”. So next time tell them to f-off.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/paul-tudor-jones-my-remarks-offended-and-i-am-sorry/2013/05/24/6bb3f0c0-c4a9-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/paul-tudor-jones-comments-on-the-lack-of-female-traders/2013/05/23/af9a81b2-c3c0-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_video.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/investor-paul-tudor-jones-says-mothers-cant-be-top-traders/

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Paul Tudor Jones – What He Should’ve Said

  1. I live in Asia and traveled exstensively NEVER have I heard, “why is it all Asians, Africans, what have you.” There are to many of European decent who have Suicidal Altruism.

  2. “Whether the questioner themselves are even aware of it, what they are doing is trying to instill guilt and shame in you merely for being white, merely for being a man and god forbid finding brotherhood within that.”

    BINGO! The white Christian heterosexual male is always in season! He’s ontologically guilty, and also automatically sexist and chauvinist. (“Christian” as in coming out of western culture with its Christian influences, not necessarily to imply religion.)

    The morality and character that has defined the WCHM is being held as racist, yet, if you go to any non white society, too, you will find the same moral confidences and ethics of character. But in the western world, there is an attempt to undermine this, and usurp moral superiority over the WCHM.

    Something disturbing, I have noticed, is the rebirth of the word “class:”

    The US has strived for equality and sacrificed hard to get away from class consciousness. Heck, I would go so far as to say that both the revolutionary and civil war was to keep out the hierarchical class conscious ideas of the other side. We generally do not make much of class, in America, and for good historical and cultural reasons.

    Yet, people marvel at the very word “class” as though its some superior morality that blacks and gays have created and brought forth. No one ever corrects them to say, “What do you mean by class? Please define “class!” In general, when the word “class” is used to compliment one person, its a clever ruse, to usurp a moral superiority over WCHMs.

    Another thing I noticed is the ability to acquiesce, and express a sense of resignation, as George Zimmerman did when he said, “they always get away.”

    Most blacks misunderstood the meditative discipline and restraint behind that expression. It was taken to be one of anger, or lust for vengeance, rather than a resignation for how things are unchanging and not beneficial to society, in a particular situation. And of course, somehow it has come to be understood that “they” refers to blacks, and could not simply specify a local group of actors.

    This is the real ignorance: The inability to understand the expressions of white Christian males, because their very being is held in contempt and charged with guilt. Who has to understand others and who has to beg not to be misunderstood, in today’s society?

    • Re: WCHM. Since this is somewhat off your point I’ll keep it short, but the C is for Christian, which raises the question in my mind. Why isn’t the church more helpful with this issue than it is? To the contrary, it has been one of the principle drivers of white guilt and white capitulation.

  3. Very well said Rick. One reason I chose to live as an expatriot I do not feel that target on my back. Most non-white countries appreciate the World that Europeans created. I have visited Viet Nam several times and the people could not be nicer to me. You would think with the history of Viet Nam and Europeans/Americans there would be a lot of resentment but there is surprisingly little.
    At this juncture the only guilt I feel is why there are so many people whith my blood who want to wipe out said blood line. There are no other people on this planet who disrespect themselves so much as a White Progressive. Not only are they suicidal but they are murderous they want to kill the very DNA they carry. I am highly offended and burn with shame that my greatest enemy is my closest kin.

  4. “Whatchya gonna do about it?”
    Not a damn thing. Don’t like it? You work your rear off to get here.

  5. The best answer is that having earned wealth is a great qualifier for being on whatever panel this might be.

    Ask the questioner why there are no men of color who qualify. And don’t let him hold up entertainers or sports figures as men of color who have achieved wealth. These people did it working with their bodies, the qualifier is to achieve wealth working with your brain.

    So far we have worked to lower the qualifications in order to achieve “diversity”. A far better course is to raise the level of the candidates…

  6. I am uncertain of who the people on the panel are, but it appears to be finance related. However; I seem to recall a Constituitional Right to freedom of assembly. These guys can get together for any reason or no reason at all. If some AA imbecile doesn’t like it, they don’t have to attend or be in the audience.

  7. No Justice? No home-improvement projects that increase the resell value not only of my property, but also that of the adjacent ones!

    Does that fit on a T-Shirt or do I need to work on a new slogan?

  8. Some thoughts on what Jones actually did say and why. Whatever his personal feelings were, when pressed he ultimately apologized. This seems characteristic behavior for people in leading positions within the private sector, as well as other non-political institutions. One has to remember that, for the people in those strata, the prevailing concern is the preservation of one’s own comfortable station. In such circumstances, controversy is risky because of the political nature of the position gained and maintained by a network of elite connections, and light that shines on one is easily reflected upon the others. Such people are above the issue of racial dignity and its fallout; they are, as the saying goes, “laughing about it all the way to the bank.” It is much easier and safer for them to go along with the prevailing wind when issues arise that do not affect their bottom line, so to speak. When Jones apologizes, it is a minor and sensible concession for him; the humiliation falls on the rest of us. And the apology-seekers may understand that leverage very well. It is an insignificant cost to Jones to give it, but its value is magnified immeasurably when it is applied against the rest of us. If you want to discourage the upper crust from this kind of capitulation, you are going to have to raise the stakes for doing so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s