Direct Link to Latest News


Women Lack the Smarts to Lead

November 6, 2010


(left) Woman's chess champion, Alexandra Kosteniuk

[Editor's Note: I think the greater problem is not gender but the fact that our leaders, male or female, are chosen by the Illuminati bankers through campaign funding. Many of the most courageous and brilliant Patriot leaders were women: Nesta Webster, Edith Starr Miller, Elizabeth Dillling and Phyllis Schlafly come to mind. Although males and females have distinct traits, I judge people on their individual merits.]

by Anthony Migchels


Clear proof that males are intellectually dominant can be found in the chess world. I'm very familiar with that sport, having been an avid tournament player for years, president of one of Holland's leading chess clubs and member of the Board of the Dutch Chess Federation.

Chess is a clearly intellectual sport. It requires brainpower, energy and good health. A chess player can use as much energy during a 6 hour 'game' as a soccer player can use in a 90 minute match. However, no physical strength is required, so it is a very reasonable testing ground for intellectual prowess.

And the fact of the matter is: men totally dominate chess.

In chess strength is expressed in Elo rating. You gain Elo points when you win, you lose them when you lose.

The best chess player in the world at this point is Magnus Carlsen, who has an Elo rating of 2826. Elite players have an elo rating of 2700 plus.

The best female player in the world is Judith Polgar, who at this point has an elo rating of around 2680. She is the only female player in the Top 100. Her sister is Susan Polgar, who was at some point Woman World Champion. She never crossed the 2600 threshold though. In fact, besides Judith there is only one woman who ever (just) managed to get a 2600+ Elo rating.

But Judith is an anomaly, because she was raised by a Hungarian psychologist who published a book before she was born entitled 'How to create a Genius'. And that is what he set out to do. He succeeded with her, but he was unlucky to have only daughters. Had his son been Vishy Anand, Magnus Carlsen or Vladimir Kramnik, they would probably have ended up with a 3000 Elo rating.

Of course there are strong women and a strong woman will beat a weak man. But a strong man will always beat every strong woman.

The few women that have the capacity and will to work at (near) top level should be able to do so. But the fact of the matter is, that very few women can really compete with men.

Nature has its paradoxical ways of asymmetric justice. Yin and Yang are opposing forces. Yin is the water that erodes the toughest rock. A gentle woman's heart will melt a real man. A fierce, competitive woman just invites him to use his superior power to put her back into her place. Or worse, to ignore her.

Women give birth to men and women alike. They nurture their offspring, literally. Women have been fooled into dismissing this invaluable contribution. It is the strangest of things. It just shows the contempt of feminism for humanity.

Both men and women have their role to play in this world. The way feminists try to usurp the male role is pathetic. To have second-rate women lead first rate men is a disgrace and unacceptable to real men. Which explains to a high extent the ever larger number of young men dropping out of school, employment and society.

Let men be the head of the household and women its heart. That is a reasonable and truthful way of organizing ourselves as a species.


Anthony Migchel's real currencies blog can be found here.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Women Lack the Smarts to Lead "

Tony said (November 7, 2010):

I'm in total agreement with Anthony Migchels concerning the abilities of women. Especially in leadership roles. As you know, I knew the legitimate genius, Paquita de Shishmareff, personally, and she was good, personal friends with both Edith Starr Miller and Elizabeth Dilling while they lived, plus Lyril Van Hyning, creator and publisher of the original "Woman's Voice" monthly magazine.

In her failing years, the last half dozen issues or so of Mrs. Van Hyning's Woman's Voice were basically reprints of her past publications with one or two new articles by her. I know because I set them up for her - mostly cut and paste - and ran them off an AB Dick press in my bedroom, "Mady" having brought her to me because she could no longer afford to pay a commercial printer.

I knew those two personally and "Mady" relayed enough stories about Miller and Dilling for me to know that these were all highly intelligent, dedicated women yet not one of them ever attempted, or wanted, to lead. Being of great intelligence, they apparently understood their success would be in deferring to men of like mind, offering their research, writing and personal suggestions when circumstances allowed. None of them would back away from anyone but neither would they push themselves to the front even though each of these was a very exceptional woman.

Conversely, I find those women who DO push themselves into leadership positions to be generally crass, blustery, users of others and conniving, but not very intelligent when you get down to it. They usually make a mess of the job to boot.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at