The Lisp Paradox

Inferior tools allow less intelligent people to create what those with greater intelligence are unable to create with Lisp.

What does this paradox mean?

Are people who choose to use Lisp actually less intelligent than people who use other languages? Is Lisp actually inferior to and less productive than these other languages? Do the few people who are able to accomplish something in Lisp actually choose it for bragging rights, the way handicaps are used in sports?

Why do people put assembly language and Lisp in the same category of difficult languages? Shouldn't the high productivity of Lisp make it one of the easy languages, like Visual Basic, Python, PHP, and JavaScript? Why is it considered a difficult accomplishment to create something useful in Lisp?

>>42
First, pick a Lisp. Next, spend 5 seconds in DDG.
http://www.cliki.net/GUI
https://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/1jq5rk/common_lisp_gui_options/

Now I put on my less-dismissive-and-anusoidal-than-thou hat. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg¹ problem. In order for people to spend time on GUI libraries, a language ecosystem should show itself viable in the GUI realm; however, availability of core GUI libraries is often a perceived prerequisite for viability.
So yes, someone must spend the time and effort to break into a new realm, and it often takes a few iterations to get everything stable. This happened with Javascript outside the browser and Python in data science, and I am certain there are other examples.

[1] Speaking of such: http://wiki.call-cc.org/chicken-projects/egg-index-4.html#graphics