Monday, February 10, 2014 - Volume 5, Number 1

© Copyright 2014, The Ultrapolis Project.  All Rights Reserved.

The Obama Twilight State: How His Loss Is America’s Loss

Republicans Should Beware, and Clintonites Should Watch Their Left Flank




The Obama State

The Fake Gender Wage Gap

The Real Income Inequality

The Tone-Deaf State


Listening to the President’s fifth official State of the Union two weeks ago, we were left to consider how is it that a man who is so capable in articulating a strong case for his policy views and his proposed path for the nation - hardline ideological immunity to his voice notwithstanding – can be so tone-deaf to the realities of his political circumstances at home, and to the real long-term consequences of his waffling abroad.  The answer, we think, comes back to the what is true of almost any man or woman who achieves great heights of acclaimed success in little time and comparatively little effort:  an arrogant misunderstanding of what the world is really like (Justin Bieber anyone)?


Real Numbers, Fake Conclusion


Of course, a few of the usual liberal-progressive tropes peppered the President’s speech. One of the biggest was his oft-repeated claim, promoting the idea that there is a “war” on women, was that women are underpaid in relation to men.  He cited the same statistic that seems to make almost every speech of his on income inequality: that women make 77 cents for every dollar men make.  But this is a well-known “dumb” statistic.    Because he repeats it so often, we feel compelled to repeat what is wrong with this number:


1)     It is a raw statistic from the U. S. Census Bureau that simply takes one measure of all fulltime wages for all men and all women – regardless of occupation, education, or work experience.  The Bureau itself admits it does not account for the mix of occupational choices, educational choices, and work experience choices (i.e., time in the labor force), made by women that can account for much, if not almost all, of this pay gap. It also does not take into account the “zero” wages of the unemployed, and men are now routinely unemployed at a higher rate than women.


2)     It is one of out of several available raw statistics aimed at measuring the gender earned income gap, except this one happens to be the one that shows the biggest gap – all the better to advance the liberal-progressive case that there is active discrimination against women that calls for more government intervention in how employers set pay.


If this gender wage gap statistic is proof of economic discrimination against women, then the gender  incarceration gap  is proof of America’s overwhelming legal discrimination against men, as men are incarcerated at a rate ten (yes, TEN) times the rate of women.  900% more prison time seems worse then 23% less pay.  We can already hear the protest: “Oh, but men are incarcerated more because they…”  Our reply:  Exactly.


Reasonable Speech,

Worthless Words


Setting aside that number, and a few dishonest claims on healthcare, the President’s arguments and positions on income inequality, educational needs, energy policy, public infrastructure, and national defense considerations came across as reasonable and well-articulated.  Regrettably, almost none of them were new, some of them are only articulated but not followed through (as in foreign affairs), and as we have already remarked on his good policy statements in more recent times, he has lost any ability to move anyone not already on board.  Furthermore, he does not seem to understand that a lasting legacy cannot be built on unilateral executive action – except in foreign policy, the one place he has abandoned to his rhetoric alone (see our article “The Day the Obama Presidency Stood Still” from UWFR November 27, 2013, where we first declared him the “President of Words”).


That past UWFR forecast on the President’s remaining time remains unchanged.  To re-state in summary here: we expect little movement initiated by the President in new initiatives, with Congressional Democrats taking over the decisions as to what parts of Obamacare are to be preserved, and how (as we said in November); and the Democrats will chart their own course on other issues without regard to the President’s leadership or prestige.  Meanwhile, Clintonites will seek ways to put distance between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama reign.  (Already, headlines last week began to bear out this forecast from November). His legacy is now in the hands of others. 


Democrat, Republican,

Rinse & Repeat


The Republicans should not draw false hope from this.  They will remain blind to their ideological reactionary stiffness, and will not understand that Barack Obama’s failure as President is more one of leadership failure and incompetence born of arrogance, than it is one of unpopular, or even ill-judged ideological vision.  2014 will do in 2016 what 2010 did for them in 2012 – unless we see a new actor on the Republican political stage that has not made him or herself known yet. (We already made our pronouncement on a possible Chris Christie candidacy a year ago in the UWFR January 18, 2013).


Snow White & the Evil Queen


Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest candidate of them all? Clinton Dynasty dreamers beware:  There are Democrats inside the castle walls conspiring even now against the presumed heiress to the world’s pinnacle of power. And, there is another in the land – a woman – purer and younger, poised to give Hillary Rodham Clinton the fight of her life.  Massachussetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is another true believer like Barack Obama, but with a lot more experience, and unassailable as a woman candidate.  She is brilliant, fearless, and knowledgeable, and will not be intimidated from standing against Clinton if she thinks this will advance her beliefs.  Still, Ms. Clinton’s strong suit, blunt ruthlessness, may yet win the day.  Senator Warren, beware poisoned apples coming your way.


Political Equality Has a Price


One of the tragedies of what we now see as President Barack Obama’s fall from his unearned dizzying heights of praise, whereby he earned acclaim and peace prizes just for being himself, is a loss to a valid and actually quite important cause for which he could have been a formidable advocate.  The dangers and moral failings of the growing income inequality in America noted by the current President of the United States are real, and the President’s expressed concern and description of this problem are quite Rooseveltian (as in Republican Theodore), and will turn out to be more prophetic than Republicans and Libertarians will ever want to admit (see our short essay “The Republicans Will Not Save Us” written on July 21, 2011).  The decline of the wages of the American middle class in general, and men’s wages and employment in particular, is a serious and highly dangerous problem for the future of American prosperity and social stability (see the latest report on this in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal).  More on this to come in future issues.


Until then, we offer this 99-year old quote from the distinguished Walter Weyl, one of the founders of The New Republic, itself an esteemed, scholarly journal of liberal, and liberal-progressive thought.   Mr. Weyl was a liberal-progressive economist at a time when liberal-progressivism was a true beacon of light illuminating the path towards human advancement:


There can be no equality, nor any approach to equality, except among men economically independent and economically comparable.  You may talk of equality and fraternity, of equal civil rights, of equal political rights, of the brotherhood of man and all the rest, but unless your man has a secure economic position, a chance to earn his living in dignity and honor, he has no rights whatsoever.  Political equality is a farce and a peril unless there is some measure of economic equality.


Walter Weyl, Economist

The New Republic

January 23 1915


We do not support socialism.  But a country that, year after year, allows over 100% of the new wealth earned from increased productivity to be handed only to the richest, and as a result most of its citizens see their real wages decline despite their increased productivity; where money more than ever floods the democratic process, and a hugely disportionate, and growing amount of it comes from the evermore exclusive wealthy class, is a country headed for long-term economic decline and social disorder.


Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CD8765.85884780

Of Porn & Men

By Scott Lund

Animal Urge Vs. Human Civilization

Filmed Orgy as Virtue




1)     a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.


Recently, a young adult male was expelled from a Florida public school after it was learned that he had performed in a gay pornographic film (it featured a homosexual orgy – but the adult boy says he is actually heterosexual).  He was reinstated after some people indignantly protested his expulsion.  The 18-year-old boy’s mother said she supports her son making these movies so he can help the family’s finances.  Many liberal-progressives have applauded the boy for doing this “work” to help his family.  Based on still shots and reviews, he appeared happily excited to do it.


I don’t know about you, but I and all the boys I knew in high school were able to find jobs that did not require us to pull our pants down, bend over, masturbate, and ejaculate before cameras permanently recording the acts for the publicly available entertainment of others.  But, here we have again, from the liberal-progressive class, an effort to raise to the level of “noble” and “heroic” what most us have usually thought of as crude and degrading behavior, by placing it under the banner of “it’s for a good cause.”  (Note: liberal-progressive lesbian feminists also object to this behavior as degrading, but only if women are the ones allowing themselves to be photographed and filmed that way).


I, Monkey


The truth is, if an adult boy wants to degrade himself by displaying himself with the self-regard and awareness of a monkey, if he wants to display his testicles, penis and anal orifice, and show those parts while masturbating or being used by other males so that other males can gratify themselves to it, that is his right – so long as it is not brought to the public square.  It is, and should be perfectly legal to treat your own body with whatever level of regard you choose.  The public school is not in the position to police off-campus behavior that is legal – no matter how revolting others may find that behavior.  That does not mean we have to say how wonderful it is and encourage others to join that behavior.  Parents and other leaders need to make clear to their children that one’s presence in a public school is a sign of a taxpayer right, not an endorsement of ones’ life choices.


Continued column 2 >



Ultrapolis World Forecast & Review

Ultrapolis Project – ultrapolisproject.com



Editor: Marco Antonio Roberts

Copy Editor: Michael Alberts

Contributing Editors:

Mark Eastman

Mark Steele





The Face of Extreme Liberal-Progressivism.  You can be sure that all these folks, except the little girl, see unisex communal bathrooms as a step forward for ALL humankind.  Modesty = backwardness,  oppression.  Top L-R: Demonstrator protesting heterosexuality at a pro-abortion rights rally; Children’s guide to nihilism at an anarchists’ fair; naked man spanked and whipped at street fair open to children; Bottom L-R: Young man at 2008 post-election rally (probably not a Romney voter); Naked 70-plus-year old men in a public street practicing inflating their scrotums; Little girl watching men having sex at a street fair in the United States.


All photos are original work from ZombieTime.com, republished here under ZombieTime’s rules. For more photos that expose the full extent of the anti-modesty extremism (we picked milder samples for this collage), click on the photo.  WARNING: ZombieTime.com’s archive contains disturbingly graphic and explicit images, and depicts many acts not suitable for viewing by minors.





< From column 1


Of Schools and Porn


In another case, a male Wisconsin middle school teacher who was fired for repeatedly viewing pornography while in his classroom, which at one point he shared with a female teacher (she objected and turned him in), was reinstated, with $225,000 in back pay.  The liberal-progressives have defended the teacher’s right not to be fired for viewing porn in a setting that could have been intruded on by a pubescent child at anytime.  As the lovely and usually bright former Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers put it while interviewed on Fox News about this issue, half of Americans view porn at work anyway, so what’s the big deal?


I don’t know about this half of America.  I am not sure why she is that people do this. (Or, should I say that men do this? Considering that men consume 90% of all porn, and we make up almost half of America, that is what she must mean.) I don’t understand why a grown man would want to view porn at work, and risk the embarrassment of being caught in the middle of indulging his animal instincts - let alone deliberately show it to a fellow female co-worker who may not be happy about that.  This has to come from a general lack of civilized concern for personal dignity and sense of modesty.  If this teacher had his sense of personal modesty and dignity intact, it would have prevented him from satisfying his animal side, and from bringing it to an unwilling participant in a children’s school.  But, this sense of personal physical dignity has almost completely disappeared from wide swaths from our society, and is catching the other parts of society completely unprepared.


The Right to Eat $#@!


People should be allowed to indulge their private indiscretions in peace – nobody is perfect, we are all human, and none of us is pure – but they should be not be permitted to bring their indiscretions into our shared public space, to demand that we admire their crude behavior, and to encourage our children to follow their example. For example, there are people who enjoy drinking each other’s urine, and some even eating each other’s solid waste. (It’s true, as incredibly nauseating as it sounds.) They are entitled to their privacy and peace – it is none of our business, no matter how utterly disgusting the rest of us find that behavior.  But, if they bring their actions to public view, and start making pronouncements about how this is admirable behavior, other members of society have every right (and for their children, a duty) to voice their objection, and legally act on that objection. Yet, as a society, we seem to be losing this view, as many liberal-progressives continue to push a clinical, libertine, and loveless view of sexuality, and some direct incredibly venomous and successfully intimidating attacks on anyone who dares speak up in opposition.


A less gritty example would be that of a tobacco smoker.  If an adult family member indulges on her own or with others who share the habit, I leave her alone, and don’t bother discussing it. But, if a nephew sees it, I make clear smoking is not a good thing, and not to be emulated – not even for a “good cause.”  If  my child caught me smoking?  Same thing.  I would say “this is a bad habit, and I should not be doing it,  and I should stop.”  I would not involve or burden a child with any more information of my private life because it would be none of her business.  It is the difference between trying to justify one’s indulgences to salve one’s own self-esteem, and admitting one’s imperfections and choosing not to spread them.


Talk of Courage


Some even employ the talk of “courage” when characterizing this public self-exposure.  On one occasion a liberal-progressive-leaning friend surprised me with a film of an adult male we both know, in which the mutual acquaintance took on two other men at the same time, if you know what I mean.  The acquaintance had also apparently acquired an onscreen nickname that referred to his ability to accommodate so many men at once.  My friend described it, literally, as a display of “courage.”  One could almost imagine an excited, cat-eye-glassed, eccentrically-dressed New York liberal exclaiming “Bravo! Bravo!” with hands aflutter in a hummingbird-like clapping motion, standing on the edge of his toes applauding a sliced cow.  However, in the next moment my friend (actually, more in giggles than atwitter) sneered and snorted over what he was watching.  To his credit, my fair-minded friend did admit there was something discordant between his words and his visible reactions.  On a different occasion he was scandalized – over a friend’s fashion choice in shoes. (I was then pretty sure he was not impressed with mine either.)


Courage is not about being indifferent or clueless to consequences while in the course of making money or indulging (or even promoting) one’s self.  Courage is the child of morality.  It is what we display when we do something that we do not want to do, something that makes us afraid, but we do it anyway because we believe it somehow elevates the human existence of another in some valuable and meaningful way.  In other words, it is the walking past our real and present fears, sacrificing and paying a personal cost; to do what we know is right for the good of another human being.  It is holding up the banner that you believe advances the course of humankind, even as you know it may leave you cursed, abandoned, and maybe even without your possessions.  Maybe even without your life.  That is courage.


Courage is not what my good friend saw on that screen; that was just plain primate stupidity.


Backward & Old Posing

As Advanced & New


Humans can step backwards.  In fact, human advancement has more often than not been two steps forward, then one step back.  Most rank-and-file liberal-progressives think that their dismantling of social norms, norms that prevailed while Western civilization ascended to its pinnacle in the century stretching from 1860 to 1960, is some new advance; that their ‘deconstruction’ is progress to new ways and the abandonment of backward old ones.  That is because like most Americans brought up in our failing schools, they see history in terms of the last 50 years.  But, when you look at human history as a whole, you see it is the other way around.  Coarse and loose sexuality, lack of modesty, polygamous families, children born out of wedlock, public pornography – it is these that are the oldest and most primitive ways of behavior.  Only gradually, and with many intervening setbacks (the most notable being the time when the Roman Republic fell and gave way to the time of imperial tyranny) have these ways of behavior gradually been filtered out of human civilization, and become much less common over the five millennia since we left our prehistoric caves and huts. 


The Thin, Reversible Veneer


Furthermore, liberal-progressives refuse to accept that civilized behavior - the glue that keeps our society held together, is taught, is not innate, and can be unlearned.  The truth is humans can, en masse, quickly abandon a view that was a core belief that previously elevated them.  Once again I turn to Rome to offer an example of such an abandoned value that even our contemporary liberal-progressive brethren would cherish:  After overthrowing their tyrant kings, for 500 years the people of Rome declared and maintained their hatred and total rejection of absolute monarchy.  The cultural norm was so strong, that for half a millennia, even the most powerful did not dare try calling themselves king, or attain its trappings.  Even after the republic fell, the absolute emperors of Rome shied away from calling themselves “king.”  Yet, they were worse than kings.  And, what had been a strong cultural vein against totalitarian rule for so many centuries, disappeared virtually overnight with the fall of the republic.  Save scattered feeble resistance, the people adapted and accepted the new order completely.  Along with the rise of the emperors, came the fall of old values and virtues.  So, yes, we humans are still always capable of reverting to more primitive, less sophisticated behavior, amidst the comfort of prosperity and protected peace.  [See our companion story at right “Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Spread.”  You can also (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES) click here to see how far people are even now rebelling against the most basic norms.]


Loose Talk of Norms


Civilized norms are there to primarily restrain, and channel productively when possible, our animal urges.  Instead, liberal-progressives see these norms as antiquated party-pooping rules (it does not dawn on them that what they want is even more antiquated).  That the metastasizing of this push to dismantle these norms since the 1960s has been followed by the collapse of the American family in the last fifty years – and that the family has for 5,000 years of human history always been understood by just about every religion, philosophy, and political science as the fundamental building block of civilization – makes no impression on them.  They are firmly unconcerned.  Their failed experiments in their communes of the 1960’s taught them nothing.  But why should we expect it would have?   Leading intellectual liberal-progressives praised Joseph Stalin in the 1930’s and the Khmer Rouge in the 1970’s (in fairness, after millions died at the hands of these socialist saviors, some did later apologize for their ideological blinders – though, too late to do any good).


I do not think liberal-progressivism has no legitimacy in questioning conservative or traditional values.  That has been its contribution to human progress.  But, there is now an uneducated, emotional and angry, corrupted version of liberal-progressivism, just as there is one of conservatism, and they are both pre-dominant today.  And so, I say these things now to point out the fallacy of the arguments they now employ to defend the indefensible, and give others the ammunition and confidence to fight this back.


Continued column 3 > 


< From column 2


The Exposed & the Hidden Truth


About that Florida boy whose sperm-ejecting prowess is available to anyone for the small price of a lunch, his mother’s pimping attitude explains why the boy is as he is.  It is not unusual for young people drawn into these activities to come from humble homes led by single parents with little education.  These homes are also the source of most prostitutes (but, at least prostitutes have the good sense to keep their activities private – a courtesy for which I honestly commend them).  The boy’s actions are not coming from courage or an elevated thinking.  They come from the education and rearing he got from his mother.


It is truly a pity. In the end, the boy (not the derelict mother, not his ‘defenders,’ and not his voyeurs), will pay a permanent price.  No one, not even those who will grovel and fawn over him while he exposes himself, really, at their core, will ever respect him when they see him with his legs open to the public.  I know this as a one who has known some porn ‘actors,’ who were stupid when they were very young, and have seen what their ‘admirers’ called them the moment they matured and changed their minds about doing porn: “too good for us, now?,” or “hypocritical slut,” or “big bottom whore”, and such.  No one is ever truly respected when they are down on all fours, displayed like zoo animals, and - except for those too stupid to ever notice it (and many are) - they will forever sense the disrespect, sometimes overt, sometimes as an undercurrent hidden even to its bearers.



Gender-Neutral Bathroom Politics

New Offensive Against Heterosexual Norms

GBLT at Forefront of Public Immodesty




1)     freedom from conceit or vanity – as in not assuming the interest or desire of others in or for you.


2)     propriety in dress, speech, or conduct – as in to show consideration and respect for the experience of others in your presence.


Coordinated Action


It seems like these last few days have been rife with stories chronicling the advance of liberal-progressives on various fronts of the culture wars (see the companion story on this page “Of Porn and Men”).  Their latest offensive against established social norms has taken the form of the simultaneous promotion of gender-neutral bathrooms in various places around the country – mostly at universities (where these things usually start, and where leftist radicals very much hold sway) including locally at the University of Houston.  And, last Tuesday the Houston Chronicle also published a photo of the notice of gender-neutral bathrooms that were proudly promoted by the organizers of the National Conference on LGBT Equality Creating Change, which was held at the Hilton Americas-Houston the previous week. This conference is about issues, ideas and agendas that are favored by, or are of interest to, non-heterosexuals.


What It Is Not About: T Rights


This idea of gender-neutral bathrooms is being promoted under the guise of accommodation and fair treatment for transsexuals who are not comfortable in either women’s or men’s bathrooms, and thus the need for the addition of bathrooms where transgender people can go without being hassled.  That is a legitimate problem.  We do not believe anyone would object to the availability of one-person bathrooms at most public locations.  In many cases these are already available for maternity or disability use.  Sometimes they are labeled as ‘family’ bathrooms where mom or dad can change a child or assist an older child.  But this is not what these new gender-neutral bathrooms are really about, and because it is not really about the transgender needs that the simple fix to simply provide single person bathrooms will not be pursued.  (Transgender people are such a small percentage of the population this solution would address the issue almost overnight).


Heterosexuality as an Affront


It is not an accident that this is coming from what we call these days the Lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community.  This community, for those that don’t live within its cultural realm, is dominated and run by lesbian feminists and those that almost sycophantically support them (even though most surveys show that there are twice as many gay men as lesbians).  Beyond that, though we know it is hard to believe and understand, elements within this leadership abhor even the slightest hint that heterosexuality is the norm for 95% of humanity, and that it should be given any special recognition, place, or consideration whatsoever.  Bathrooms that are divided by gender are a daily affront to these folks.  Furthermore, many of these folks also despise just about any norms of civilized society that make them self-conscious of their sexual fetishes and interests that vary noticeably from the norm.


No Men Only!


Among some of the hardcore lesbian feminists, there is also a visceral objection to the idea of any space or room that is for men only - even a bathroom.  It may sound preposterous, but we have ample evidence of their existence in their own literature postulating on the truths and wisdom of lesbian feminism, where these ideas hide in plain sight for anyone who cares to read this literature.  It is unpleasant reading, so it is a pretty safe place to hide these ideas from most people, though apparently they sell enough of those books to merit their appearance in gay (rather, GBLT) bookstores around the world.


Keeping it Simple


These people insist, contrary to any scientific evidence or pre-dominant religious scripture, that all differences between men and women are artificial - a “social construct” created by men for the purpose of oppressing women, especially women that do not wish to be with a man.  Therefore, there is no need to manage sexual tension or attraction between the sexes or to manage sexual modesty between the two.  Their less-sophisticated followers simplify this, and just say that keeping separate bathrooms for the sexes is no different than keeping separate bathrooms for blacks and whites.  Thus do the folks that routinely accuse conservatives of being simplistic accept this absurdly simplistic equation.


Scientifically speaking, the innate differences between men and women are greater than those between any other categories of human beings. And unlike any other separable groups, women and men must always come together for life to continue.


House Pets Have More Decorum


And, that is how we arrive at people for whom urinating and defecating alongside members of the opposite sex is important, as they think it proves their enlightened view that gender differences are imagined, and since they themselves have no more modesty regarding these issues than a house pet (again, see accompanying story), they see no issue with it at all.  Many GBLT people are used to these bathrooms anyway, as they are common in gay bars (where 90% of the clientele is usually of one gender or the other).  If you would like to see an example of what other types of other public co-ed, unfettered co-mingling many of these same people are comfortable with, just (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES) click here.  You will see why to them, by comparison, this change seems so inconsequential. 


Neutrality vs. Reality


The point is, while we do believe that people ought to be able to indulge whatever base desires they have in whatever private or remote space they reserve for themselves (whether they should is not for us to decide for them, so long as no one is being harmed or needlessly disturbed), we are we firmly and absolutely opposed to their dragging the rest of us into that space.  Yet, many of them, with their fractured sense of self-esteem, cannot abide the desire of others to stand apart from their choices, or from them.


In the end, when they attempt to eliminate the single sex bathrooms (and they will), this will not sit well with many heterosexual women (women are just smarter about sexual realities and dangers than men – they have to be).   Setting aside the increased opportunities for young men to be permanently labeled “sex offenders” for even small or imagined transgressions, and the attendant and equally permanent catastrophic economic consequences to their lives, all it would really take is the first aggressive molestation or rape of a woman to ensure women-only restrooms are maintained – but, not necessarily the men’s; and that would suit the radical lesbian feminists just fine, because preventing any men-only space is what they are always after anyway.


So, stay tuned, for that disappearing single-sex bathroom near you.


Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CD8765.85884780


Our forecast record cannot be beat.  One can follow the herd chasing the latest hyperbolic, melodramatic, and soon-forgotten micro-trend on Facebook and Twitter, or one can be wisely and judiciously in front of it with UWFR. 


Comments may be directed to contactproject@ultrapolisproject.com, or if you receive the newsletter email, also via a reply to the email address from which you receive it. OR CLICK BELOW






Income Slave Runaway



Climate Change Hell Freezes Over

Tea Party Suggestions


NSA Santa

The Turkey Fix


 Main Index of the Ultrapolis World Forecast & Review


© Copyright 2013, The Ultrapolis Project – All Rights Reserved.