Men are the stronger sex
In this day and age of feminists in the West clamoring for minimum quotas of women in office and upper management it is relevant to ask whether this would really serve society and whether women have the capacities needed for leadership.
It is well known that men are physically stronger. Feminists have had their go at explaining this away with a number of rationalizations, but none of them worked because of the obviousness of the fact. So now it is being ignored as irrelevant. Women these days don’t need strong men, because they have lesbians in the police force protecting them from male oppression and sexual harassment. Or so they think.
However, less clear is the fact that men are also intellectually dominant. Clear proof of this statement 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 Hollands 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 chessplayer can use as much energy during a 6 hour ‘game’ as a soccerplayer 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 threshhold though. In fact, besides Judith there is only one woman who ever managed to get a 2600+ elo rating.
But Judith is an anomoly, 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 the fact of the matter is, 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. Women give birth to men and women alike. They nurture their offspring, literally. Women have been fooled to dismiss this invaluable contribution as unworthy. It is the strangest of things.
Both men and women have their role to play in this world. The way feminists try to usurp the male role is not based in fact and 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 and employment.
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.
Yay! Thanks for posting this.
Well said. Today I had to attend a PHSE (Personal, Social, Health Education) lesson delivered to the sixth form of the school at which I teach. These lessons are now legally compulsory.
It was about ‘homophobia’. The usual PC kind of stuff. Full-on social engineering. I could not bite my tongue and gave an alternative perspective on the issue. My words were not like your article here but more about the anti-family, ant-male consequences of this promoted agenda.
However, now you mention it, men have been brainwashed into experiencing themselves as ‘weak’. Women often hog leadership positions in some professions, teaching being one. (I cannot seek such jobs as I’d rather be dead than inflict the inhuman, dumbed-down, obedience-conditioning shyte that we call ‘education’ on another human being.
Women make poor leaders, I have found. They tend to listen to the orders they receive very carefully, try to obey to the letter and receive any comments from colleagues (or underlings) that tend towards the critical as attacks on their person rather than attempts to be helpful or, perhaps, to apply some common sense to a situation.
It was a smart move by the PTB to get women out of the home and promote their in the workplace.
Disastrous for men….and society at large, I feel.
Hi Ken,
Yeah, the reason why I put this explicitly is because I feel we should go further than explaining our kids need us too. This in itself is a position of weakness.
Let’s just get the bloody obvious out there. Men and Women are both children of the One and absolutely equal in the spiritual plane. In fact, because of their meekness, women are probable closer to God in many ways.
However, in this material plane it is quite clear who’s boss. I hate to state what is so clear, but it seems more necessary than ever.
PS: I liked your Protocol 20 analysis about the crunch. I analyzed the same chapter from purely monetary viewpoint here: http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/the-protocols-on-money/
Well said. Today I had to attend a PHSE (Personal, Social, Health Education) lesson delivered to the sixth form of the school at which I teach. These lessons are now legally compulsory.
It was about ‘homophobia’. The usual PC kind of stuff. Full-on social engineering. I could not bite my tongue and gave an alternative perspective on the issue. My words were not like your article here but more about the anti-family, ant-male consequences of this promoted agenda.
However, now you mention it, men have been brainwashed into experiencing themselves as ‘weak’. Women often hog leadership positions in some professions, teaching being one. (I cannot seek such jobs as I’d rather be dead than inflict the inhuman, dumbed-down, obedience-conditioning shyte that we call ‘education’ on another human being).
Women make poor leaders, I have found. They tend to listen to the orders they receive very carefully, try to obey to the letter and receive any comments from colleagues (or underlings) that tend towards the critical as attacks on their person rather than attempts to be helpful or, perhaps, to apply some common sense to a situation.
It was a smart move by the PTB to get women out of the home and promote their in the workplace.
Disastrous for men….and society at large though.
FWIW this is all nonsense. I’m a male chess player and I’m well aware of the gap between male and female players, but there are many reasons for women not being as successful as men, less participation being an obvious one.
Take a look at poker; people said for years that women can’t play poker but there are a number of very successful women that have won high-profile tournaments.
And chess is no more an IQ test than poker; this is how you get people taking defeats personally and not studying the game properly. It’s just a game.
As for the rest of the stuff about leadership, anyone who hasn’t lived in a hole can give lots of examples of great women leaders. And *even if* it were true that men generally made better leaders, it still makes sense for men and women to compete for such roles, because society should judge individuals and not generalize.
“successful” women nowadays are simply masculinized, parodies.
They are the furthest thing from feminine – but they call themselves “feminists”, and that looks quite sinister to me. In any case, it is a lie.
It is so bad for women to be competitive, tough, “strong”. They need to leave stress and being tough to men. Why not for Heaven’s sake?!!
How can women who are tense, stressed, nervous, behave in the relaxed nurturing way which their children need so much.
If there is one thing a child needs it is a peaceful mother – from the time of conception and throughout their childhood, so that they can feel at peace with the World, confident and strong.
Women endow men with power and strength when they ask men to take care of them and their children. It is a paradox, like everything in life, and it is fatal for us all to mess with this. It is destroying the World. Literally.
Children cannot grow up to be confident and strong people, whether men or women, without the strength of a father in the house. It is no just the love of a father the y need, but if you watch a child who is coming apart, getting out of hand, no woman can bring any child back to sanity as a man can. A man just has to give a low command which sounds a bit like a growl to a child,and you can see that child straighten up, rescued from imminent collapse and the destruction of his or her composure and dignity, like a building about to collapse suddenly straightening instead of disintegrating.
Father’s make life so much easier for children, and for us all.
Of all the forces which are destrohing our World at this time I blame the fe-manists. I truly detest them – for being so very stupid.
Beautiful Astraea, I only just noticed this. So true. So wonderful to hear this.
Thank you very much for this.
Is that why women live longer and healthier than men ?
Please, one day, accompany your grand-mother to her high-school reunion, then observe, how many of her still living class-mates are women, and in what condition the old class-mates are.
Observations in 1868:—
Christian ministry ceased to claim the veneration of mankind for the Bible. Christianity dropped the reins, and the riderless horse is seeking a master. Man must revere something must bow to something with blind veneration; and when the Christian ministry no longer challenge his reverence for God, he bows his neck to the yoke of necromancy and the pretensions of imposture.
It is the worst misfortune of the time that the votaries of Christianity are maddened too. The excitement that prevails has swept religious thought from its moorings. Imagination rules the hour, and leads reason captive to adorn its triumph. The votaries of Christianity are divided into two classes, equally wayward, and almost equally mad. The pious and despondent give up the world to ruin; they turn to prophecy for comfort, and await in rapt and hopeful expectation the coming of their Lord, to arrest the progress of impiety and summon man to judgment. But the largest class of professed Christians partake of the visionary theories which agitate the age. They discard reverence for divine revelation where it comes in conflict with their views. They have forgot the precepts of the religion of peace, of reverence, of love, and joined the hell-dance of madness and passion. They follow the meteor flame gendered of the general fermentation, supposing it the beacon light of progress. Religion is no longer reverence for God and obedience to his will; it is devotion to the principles of progress recognized in this generation.
Shepherd and flock are gone astray together. Preachers love popularity; and congregations variously agitated with business cares, fashionable jealousies, stormy politics, and fiery fiction, will not listen patiently to an earnest appeal to the conscience, or devoutly to a presentation of the majesty of God. Veneration and conscientiousness are overwhelmed in the prevailing excitement: besides, these views are old; and to minds so long swept onward in the excited rush from one novelty to another, familiar thought has lost its charm. The ministry, moreover, has been swept along with the current of agitated feeling, and is prepared to become the organ of the prevailing intoxication of thought. Consequently, the pulpit, instead of asserting the conservative dignity of Christianity, and commanding man, everywhere, to repent and bow down in humility before God, is hounding on the excitement, and represents the Almighty as the leader of the cry.
The truths which teach humility are ignored. The ministry satisfy the consciences and please the self love of admiring audiences, by rousing their hatred of sins not their own, and, like the authors of fiction, inspiring them with pity of sorrows far away that do not appeal to self-sacrificing benevolence. They are lecturers upon popular and exciting topics appertaining to philanthropy and progress, suited to the prevailing taste; and afford their audiences on the Sabbath an agreeable entertainment, as exciting in its way as the lectures, the theaters, the political harangues, the ball-rooms, and concerts that occupy their weekly hours. They have lowered Christianity to the level of the various Deistical movements of the day, representing its grand aim as social advancement, instead of the salvation of men.
=====
Many classes of social monomaniacs exist, who rant their frenzied crudities to audiences almost as frenzied as they.
One class finds the germ of all evils in the social position of woman, which they choose to term subordinate. They hold that if the softness of woman’s nature were hardened into steel by rough contact with social and political life, it would work the regeneration of our race. They would mar the one redeeming feature of society, —the gentle clinging tenderness of woman, which so fits her to soothe the excitements and soften into gentleness the asperities of the masculine nature; and would transform her into a hard, stern, strong-minded creature, wrestling and struggling with life, endeavoring to compensate the lack of strength and massiveness of organism by fiery excitability, and degenerating into a fierce, malignant, revengeful virago. An unsexed woman is a demon. A race of women formed upon the model of these monomaniacs would be the mothers of a race of savages.
Another class find all evils in the restraints of the matrimonial relation ! They believe the race will never improve until it is animalized and riots in the license of bestial liberty !
Another class find in communism a remedy for all social evils. Beholding the sufferings of poverty and the riotous luxury of wealth, their souls are filled with indignation at the unequal distribution of social blessings. They behold mankind universally disquieted by care the care of avarice, or the care of penury; and they would cut the Gordian knot of social ill by an universal distribution of goods. In other words, they would confiscate the property of the industrious, prosperous class, for the benefit of vagabonds and Bohemians; they would convert the world into a vast poor-house system, where the industrious should work for the support of the sluggards, until at last mutual disgust should empty the lazar-house Babels, and disperse over the earth a race of barbarians destitute of the principles of government and the rules of social order.
It’s actually quite amazing name789!
Thank you for sharing this information.
That there is actually any doubt is quite telling.
About Pound: I’m pretty sure he favored both Social Credit and Gesell’s innovations. He visited Unterguggenberger in Worgl. Twice. Unterguggenberger died in (I think) 1936, otherwise it’s not unlikely he would have seen him more often: Pound was close to Tyrol through the 30s and early 40’s.
here’s some Pound on Social Credit:
“In respect of this legacy of mechanical efficiency and scientific advance we have at our disposal a large volume of SOCIAL CREDIT, which can he distributed to the people as a bonus over and above their wage packet. Douglas proposed to bring up the TOTAL purchasing power of the whole people by a per capita issue of tickets PROPORTIONAL to available goods. In England and U.S. today available and desired goods remain unbought because the total purchasing power (i.e., total sum of tickets) is inadequate. Mussolini and Hitler wasted very little time PROPOSING. They started and DO distribute BOTH tickets and actual gopds on various graduated scales according to the virtues and activities of Italians and Germans. Douglas may object that this is not “democratic” (that is egalitarian) BUT for the monetary scientist or economist the result is the same. The goods are getting distributed.”
Link: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/what-is-money-for/
Mullins I simply don’t know. Interesting you assume he was metalman. But quite clearly he did not associate metal with altruism: the quote I offered was pretty devastating.
Btw: I’ve been told Jefferson cooled to gold in his later years. Calhoun was early 1800’s, I know Dick Eastman agrees with his statements, but as you know I’m not really very well informed on american anti money power history, so every bit of info I much appreciate.
Of course: even gold could work if it was controlled by the sovereign, especially when reinforced with a demurrage to obtain max circulation and prevent hoarding. But like Pound, correctly, noted: in times of crisis a nation under attack could easily be confronted with a drain of liquidity if the rich stash their monetary wealth elsewhere.
of course in such a case the easiest thing in the world would be to print some treasury notes. But if that is the case, we would have to explain the case for gold again. especially if the sovereign does NOT control the gold, as is the case today: in that case the nation would have to borrow it at interest just to finance day to day internal trade.
Seems to me a man like Mullins would have great difficulty with such a scenario.
but as I have noticed quite often: there is a vast difference between the many who have a notion of the Money Power and the basic problems with currency and the few who actually have reasonable ideas about what to do about it.
Rather unique, to my mind, is a combination of both……………..
A race of women formed upon the model of these monomaniacs would be the mothers of a race of savages.
In the 1960s ’70s, ’80s, such women did bring forth a generation of savages…….
==========
>>>>Btw: I’ve been told Jefferson cooled to gold in his later years. Calhoun was early 1800s, I know Dick Eastman agrees with his statements,
Jefferson wrote his letter to Crawford (one time secretary of the treasury, other time presidential candidate, all the time supporter of the Bank of the United States concept) in 1816, he was 73 years old, 10 years later he died…….. (when did he have time to cool?)
Dick purposely avoids the whole Calhoun; he picks and chooses to construct a Calhoun that suits his wishful thinking.
======
two different things:
1) is gold (or silver, or tobacco, or cow-hide, or mulberry bark) good for money ?
2) what were the views of historical figures, like Jefferson, regarding money ?
======
gold:
if coin alone, or Treasury note alone, was used in transactions, hoarding and accumulation would not be so disproportionate as under our system; boom-and-bust cycle would not exist; credit would not be monetized, and would not be lent; only pre-existing money could be borrowed and lent
>>>But like Pound, correctly, noted
The Jefferson example he “used” is exactly that: in time of crisis the government would borrow from the people and issue these promises to pay silver Treasury notes (hopefully there would be no war in every decade)
“I wholly deny the existence of intrinsic value, whether in gold or any other object. I base the claims of silver, as I have always based them, on the indispensable necessity for some money material acceptable to our people and especially adapted to the money use — a material which shall exist in quantity sufficient to furnish to a rapidly increasing population such number of monetary units (dollars) as shall keep pace with the constantly growing demands of a country whose development has hardly yet begun.”
>>>>cooled to gold in his later years.
Thomas Jefferson
to Charles Pinckney.
Monticello, September 30, 1820.
“As to the tariff, I should say put down all banks, admit none but a metallic circulation, that will take its proper level with the like circulation in other countries, and then our manufacturers may work in fair competition with those of other countries, and the import duties which the government may lay for the purposes of revenue will so far place them above equal competition.”
“Besides being involved in the whole process of human evolution from top to bottom, in war and in peace, as bearers of the heritage and workers in the arts and sciences, women stand in a peculiar relation to the psychological centrum, the market, around which modern industry revolves, and to the periphery where it affects all culture. Although from Cæsar’s day onward, strong men have denounced ‘those things which tend to effeminacy,’ as a matter of brutal fact without those very things there would be little more than caves and barracks or bare monastic walls in the wide world. However that may be historically, women are now the chief buyers of goods, including letters and arts, thus within generous limits the directors of business enterprise and taste. According to recent estimates, women in the United States pay taxes on more than three billion dollars of individual income annually, receive seventy per cent of the estates left by men, and sixty-four per cent of the estates left by women. In a burst of prophecy, one statistician tells us that, assuming the continuance of the present rate of transfer, all the property in the country will be in the hands of women by the year 2035 !
“What then becomes of the feminist dictum that a civilization can rise no higher than the status of its women ? Whether this contention is true of societies founded on war and priestcraft, it certainly seems to be true of an industrial order — a system of mass production for diversified popular consumption. Leaving aside for the moment women’s relations to arts and letters, it must be admitted that their power as the buyers of goods gives them a strategic position in the unfolding of modern civilization. Hence they, too, must be drawn into the main stream of history as thought.”
—1930, The Rise of American Civilization
This is the stupidest fucking post i have ever read you idiot.WOMEN ARE SUPPOSED TO BE STRONG! Im a guy and I fucking hate weak women you stupid fucked up bitch.Go to hell and burn there you stupid ass sexist motherfucker. Women make great leaders you ass wipe.And its fucking ok for women to be stronger than men some fucking times you pussy.Fuck off.
That’s great Kiley! Thanks!
Women are weaker than men though. Significantly weaker, you white knight pussy.
Brave words Anthony. There is more to say. Men and women are different, and men have more of a certain type of intelligence, like for chess. But women have a greater emotional intelligence. And a male dominated world is unbalanced. For instance, I think we should have some kind of mothers parliament in every country, and before any war starts, the mothers parliament of both countries should meet and discuss the issues. I think the women would quickly find common ground and tell the men to put the guns away.
That was by far the softest shit I’ve ever heard in my life. Get back to the kitchen.
What do you mean in this article? That men are superior to females? Your article is very biased and you seem not to know the struggles of women are just as tough as men.
Yes they generally are.
This is a very biased article how selfish of you to say that. You know in some parts of the world women actually think that they deserves beatings from their husbands if they don’t follow orders and they think they have no right to refuse sex. Can you see what damage you are doing to this world?!
I’m not calling for beating women Salma. Although I’m certainly not on the hysterical ‘YOU MUST NEVER LAY A HAND ON A WOMAN’ bandwagon either. Plenty of women behave atrociously and a good sound bitchslapping can easily be what the doctor ordered, under these circumstances.
In this article, I’m just pointing out the obvious: men are more powerful than women and women have a womb. This has obvious and important implications for how we organize in families and in society.
There is no ‘equality’. There can be male and female privilege, though.