Category Archives: Urban Studies

The Smashing Success of the Venezuelan Bolivarian Project

Tulio says, sarcastically:

Because Bolivarianism has worked out so well in Venezuela.

It’s been a smashing success as far as alleviating poverty has gone. The poverty rate was 90% when he got in, and now I think it is 25%. He radically expanded schooling, medical care, public transportation, sewage systems, and gave jobs to so many slum dwellers. He built cheap food markets all over the cities so the poor could afford to buy enough food to eat. He had stores called My Happy Home that sold lots of household items for quite cheap, cheap enough so poor people could afford them.

Chavez went around the country in the smaller cities and rural areas building small homes for families. They were quite spartan and small, but he gave them to these people for free! They were so happy because previously they had been living in slums. Rural poverty has been dramatically reduced. Chavez’ followers occupied lots of large farms and drove the large landowners off the land and set up cooperatives there so they could grow their own food. Before they had been malnourished impoverished landless peasants. The rural poor love Chavez.

In 1989, 90% of the population was poor. The poor majority has benefited enormously from Bolivarianism. That is why he and his allies got re-elected, what? 20 times? He also dramatically expanded public housing in the slums. He really made an incredible dent in urban poverty. In fact, one of the problems is that so many poor people did so well under Chavez that they become middle class and then they started voting conservative and biting the hand that fed them.

You can even look at figures like caloric intake. There is a lot of propaganda along these lines, but the fact remains that Venezuelans are getting plenty of food to eat. Caloric intake has gone way up for the majority of people under the Chavistas. Of course, when Chavez got in, ~90% of the people weren’t even getting enough food to eat.

The upper class, the upper middle class and unfortunately some middle class elements have been very unhappy because they have monopolized the economy since Independence. You see in 1989 when there was a 90% poverty rate and 90% of the people could only afford one meal per day? The country was awash in oil money then but it was all being hogged and robbed by a voracious, venal oligarchy. The wealthier classes have suffered. They lost a lot of their wealth and privileges. Too bad! I say good!

Bottom line is the poor majority and the working classes and peasants have benefited incredibly from Bolivarianism. That is really the majority or the vast majority of the people. It’s been great for ~70% of the people.

A minority of the people, the wealthier classes, lost a lot of their wealth and privileges as wealth that was previously monopolized by them was redistributed to the masses. Bolivarianism has been objectively bad for ~30% of the population, a minority. The opposition can’t win an election. They have hardly one a single election since Chavez came in. Even Congressional, mayoral and gubernatorial elections are typically wild sweeps by the Chavistas and a total wipe-out for the opposition.

They can’t win because they represent the interests of the wealthier minority of classes, the former oligarchy and ruling class. The poor, the workers and the peasants see the Opposition as the enemy. These same people ruled the country for 165 years since Independence and all they did was enrich themselves and they never did a damn thing for the vast majority of the poorer people. The Chavista voters don’t trust the Opposition because they figure that if they get in, they will bring back the system that screwed these people for 165 years. The people are with the Chavistas, for good reason. The Opposition can never win because they lack majority support. What’s the problem?


Filed under Americas, Bolivarianism, Economics, Health, Latin America, Left, Nutrition, Politics, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South America, Urban Studies, Venezuela

What To Do about the Awful Slums of Latin America?

brown paper bag writes:

Robert, I realize this is somewhat unrelated, and that there may be a better post to ask this, but what do you suggest should be done about the favelas in Brazil, and the seemingly hopeless impoverishment elsewhere?

I do not know. Isn’t Chavez Bolivarian Movement in Venezuela trying to address problems like that? I would say that the solution to those awful slums in Latin America would be a Venezuelan model. Every country in Latin America with awful slums like that should try to go the Bolivarian route. One thing is for sure, the standard capitalist model is utterly failing to deal with that problem.


Filed under Americas, Bolivarianism, Brazil, Economics, Latin America, Left, Regional, Sociology, South America, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, Venezuela

Robert Stark interviews The Truth Will Live about Cultural & Aesthetic Decline


I actually like this woman a lot. She is a young Jewish woman who co-hosts a show with Luke Ford, who is also Jewish. I like both of these people, but I especially like this young woman. She makes a lot of sense. Plus she is pretty.

Topics include:

Her Art History Major in College

Her take on modern art and how it was innovative at first but has become repetitive

Why the mainstream right has little interest in arts, culture, and aesthetics

The aesthetic decline of cities and the creation of bland suburbs

How mainstream conservative view the destruction of historic communities as part of the “free market”

How the Alternative Right attracts creative types and takes a more Eurocentric outlook

Why the people  and culture is more important than economics in having a successful society

How there is something Spiritual and Transcendent about aesthetic beauty

Anarcho Tyranny which is an imposed standard of no standards

How standards in fashion have declined

How the upper class are emulating the aesthetic standards of the proletariat

The role of Aesthetics in Judaism and Jewish Culture


Filed under Art, Conservatism, Culture, Judaism, Philosophy, Political Science, Religion, Sociology, Urban Studies

Robert Stark Interviews Charles Lincoln about Las Vegas, New Orleans & Vice

I listened to quite a bit of this interview, and I did enjoy it. Charles is a friend of mine.


Topics include:

Contrasting the histories of Las Vegas and New Orleans

The ecological impacts of building cities in the desert

How both cities serve a function as a destination for escape, hedonism, and vice

How bread and circuses distract the masses.

How without the law, there would be no vice.

How when vice becomes suppressed, it becomes more cruel.

How New Orleans has gentrified since Hurricane Katrina.

How the culture of New Orleans is one that enjoys life because it accepts death.

How in New Orleans there’s no pressure to be either moral or immoral.

The European cultural influence in New Orleans.

The cult of youth.


Filed under American, Culture, Environmentalism, Europe, Hurricane Katrina, Law, Louisiana, Nevada, Political Science, Regional, Sociology, South, Urban Studies, USA, West

Why Don’t Whites Loot?

From the comments:

Jason Y: How do you know whites wouldn’t do the same? I mean, look at the craze with “free music downloads”. Well, now it’s mostly past cause internet companies have put viruses in the free downloads. Nonetheless, whites as well as blacks were rushing to STEAL as much as they could.

RL: When was the last time large numbers of Whites went on a mass looting spree in a city?

Jason Y: When were Whites they given a chance? Hordes of whites don’t live in the inner city.

Why do riots have to be limited to the inner city? Riots can start anywhere. Black people start riots in their own neighborhoods and then loot those neighborhoods. The two things are tied together.

Blacks start riots a lot, so they loot a lot.

Whites don’t often start riots in their neighborhoods, so White people don’t loot following non-existing riots. Even when Whites do start riots, which they do sometimes, they usually do not loot during them.

Whites start few riots, so they don’t loot very much.

It is pretty straightforward.

However, I will tell you that during the LA Riots 20 years ago, the rioting spread all the way up to Hollywood and a woman I know who lived there at the time told me that lots of younger White men were looting in Hollywood. So Whites are capable of looting. They just don’t do it all that much.

The recent riots in the UK (mostly in London) were started by Blacks, but the rioters ended up being 50-50 Black and White. So there were quite a few White looters in the London riots.

Also I think comparing downloading music illegally with violent looting following a violent riot is dubious to say the least.


Filed under Blacks, Britain, Europe, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, Whites

Robert Stark Interviews Matt Forney about Tag the Sponsor


He also refers to one of my articles.

I enjoyed this article, but I am starting to feel cold about the Alternative Right stuff. All of these morons keep insisting that I am a rightwinger, but I go to rightwing sites and I want to punch the computer. I do not agree with these people at all. Matt is very much anti-Left and that is a big turnoff. I am against the Cultural Left, but not the Left per se. Forget that.

Topics include:

Matt’s article Tag the Sponsor Exposes the Depravity of Modern Women about Instagram models who whore themselves out to Arab oil sheiks in Dubai

The depravity of Dubai and other oil rich Arab Gulf states

Do these women become irreparably damaged?

How society’s sexual mores have declined

Matt’s article on Cassandra Lynn’s Death Shows Why You Should Never Wife Up Broken Girls

Matt’s review of Jared Taylor’s Face to Face with Race

Matt’s article The Triumph of Hope Over Experience about Mayor Bill De Blasio and New York City

How New York City’s gentrification killed it’s created energy and how it’s symbolic of today’s decline in creativity


Filed under Conservatism, Depravity, Left, Middle East, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, Women

Organized Versus Unorganized Violence

Jason Y writes:

A lot of Asians would do the same to white people, if it were legal. You can’t imagine all the hateful comments, many about Bin Laden, from Asians who didn’t even know me……Here’s another thought: Blacks kill in person, but many races use war and terrorism. Either way, they want death…

…A lot of Asians would do the same to white people, if it were legal. You can’t imagine all the hateful comments, many about Bin Laden, from Asians who didn’t even know me…

…Here’s another thought: Blacks kill in person, but many races use war and terrorism. Either way, they want death…

…Do Europeans love white people, or especially Americans? What would some 20 year old something soccer fan do to an American, if it were legal??

The problem here is who would you rather live with, Japanese and Germans or Blacks? Say you could live in a city full of Japanese people, a city full of German people, or a city full of Blacks. Which one would you rather live in?

Yes indeed, German and Japanese people committed an incredible amount of organized violence recently, some of the worst in history. Now whether that makes them inferior or not is up for grabs. But they commit almost no unorganized violence.

Now Blacks commit a lot of unorganized violence and not necessarily so much organized violence. However, their restraint was probably due more to lack of modern weaponry than anything else. In the last 45 years, Blacks have committed a lot of organized violence in Africa.

Biafra 1970: 2 million killed.

Sudanese Civil War 1956-2012: 1.5 million killed.

Rwanda Genocide 1993: 1.2 million

Congo Civil War 1995-present: 3 million killed.

So as you can see, once you give Black people modern weaponry, they can commit quite a bit of organized violence themselves.

Now I could go live in a 100% Japanese city in Japan. Sure, the Japanese committed horrific organized violence in WW2. So in living with them I would be living with a group that is known for horrifying levels of organized violence. But the thing is that they have done no organized violence since. I could go live there, and I could look out at the city and think, these people could rise up and their organized violence thing again and kill millions of people and they might kill me. But I would just assume that they are not going to do that as they haven’t in 70 years.

Same thing if I go and live in a German city. The Germans probably committed worse organized violence than the Japanese. Now I could go live in Germany in a city full of 100% Germans. Now Germans are some scary people. They are capable of quite a bit of bad stuff. And they could rise up again in another of their spasms of organized violence just like 70 years ago. But I would just assume that they are not going to do that, and I would just live in Germany and take my chances with their record of organized violence.

Another thing about organized violence is that you can often get out of the way of it. You can see it coming. If I lived in Germany or Japan, I would have ample warning at the slow rise of fascism and militarism, and I would have a lot of time, probably years, to get out of the way of it.

Now I could go live in Detroit, Camden or Baltimore, all Black cities. The unorganized violence is so chronic and at such a a high level that I would live in a constant state of fear. I would be much more likely to be victimized by bad people living in that Black city than living in that German or Japanese city.

So an ethnicity’s record of Organized Violence is not very relevant. What is relevant to any one human is, “Will I be victimized or harmed by bad people.” On that score, Disorganized Violence is much more of a menace to the average person.


Filed under Asians, Blacks, Crime, Europeans, Germans, Japanese, Northeast Asians, Race/Ethnicity, Sociology, Urban Decay, USA, War

The Decline

Ricks writes:

@ Robert wrote: – It’s just, if you’re honest, well, going from a White town to an Hispanic town, any honest person would have to admit it’s a downgrade. And if you compare a White town to an Hispanic town, well, it’s a decline. Not a severe decline, but a decline nonetheless….

Sure its not a significant decline but I think it sure is a noticeable decline. Also many of these “vibrant” town end up cash strapped because of the vibrancy (Crime) the decent folks move out! Like you sad it is sad why many Hispanics like it like that (many are foreign born) anyone with a bit of common sense and education will move out ASAP…

This is simply the truth. I do not see why anyone with two eyes and ears could possibly not understand this. Anyone who doesn’t believe it must be either deluded or lying to themselves. There is definitely a decline. When a town goes from majority-White to majority-Hispanic, one does sense a sort of general decline in the town. It is not as if it is no longer livable; in fact, it is still quite livable, but it’s just not the same town anymore, and I don’t mean that in a good sense. The decline is not great or extreme, but it not insignificant either, and it is enough to be noticeable. It is sort of a sense that the city “has gone downhill” somewhat. Hard to put your finger on.

Something I have noticed is that apparently a lot of Hispanics actually like this somewhat degraded culture. Even with the crime and ugliness, they seem to think it is all peaches and roses. They are in their element and they love it. I don’t get it.

Now when a city goes from majority-White to majority-Black, typically things are much worse. Of course there is a decline in almost all cases. And it is a very significant and profound decline in all major areas. This is so obvious that I do not understand how anyone could deny it.

It’s also a good argument for not letting the Black populations of cities get too large as a small Black population is generally manageable, but there is a “tipping point” of ~20% where things start to head downhill pretty fast. For instance, we have 4% Blacks in this town. Most of them are ghetto Blacks, and honestly I really dislike them a lot. That is because I have had the misfortune of getting to know some of them. Let’s just say that I probably would have liked these local Blacks a lot better if I had not gotten to know them so well and understood what they are really like!

Even some of the ghetto types are ok (especially the young women) but they have this “ghettoness” about them that bothers me for some reason.

There are also some older Blacks who are not ghetto, but they are not really assimilated either. I am not sure how to describe them, but I know people who would call them “real Blacks.” Real Blacks as opposed to what these types call “White Blacks.” Honestly there is nothing really wrong with them except they are not that smart, and their culture appears somewhat degraded to me. They remind me of the sort of more traditional, well behaved, working class Blacks you might find in a lot of the South. A lot of them are very religious and have strong accents.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with them to tell the truth except that I just do not and cannot relate to their culture. It is completely alien to the one I grew up with. But I cannot say that they are bad people.

There are some Blacks here who are somehow middle class or above. They have totally assimilated to normative American (White?) culture, act very well and are indistinguishable from anyone else.

Now mind you, these local Blacks still cause problems. But they don’t cause mayhem, which is what you often get with large Black populations.

As with the Hispanics, you get the feeling that a lot of these ghetto types actually like the wildness, chaos, 24-7 party, loud, flashy, belligerent, strutting, blinged out culture of Cadillacs, 40’s, blunts, rims, grills and hos. Even with all the crime and gangs and morbidity, they seem as if they are in their element. It is as if they think it is a continuous wild party. I suppose I understand this, but to this introvert, it just seems so insane.

This is one thing I would agree with the White nationalist types about – that this decline is very real and is not a figment of anyone’s imagination. On the other hand, if you got most White people drunk and alone in a room where no one could hear them, a lot of them would agree with statement just the same.


Filed under American, Blacks, Culture, Hispanics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, USA, Whites

What Is It Like for a White Person to Live in a Latino Town?

A friend of mine recently wrote me asking me what it is like to live in a Latino city. These were my responses to him.

You live in a Latino town don’t you?

Yes, 67%.

What’s it like?

I speak Spanish, and the Mexicans are an integral part of California and always have been. But there were never this many of them, and the ones I grew up with were assimilated.

This town is ok, except you sort of feel like you are living in an Upgraded Mexico. Mexicans are very friendly people, and they are overjoyed if you can speak even two words of their language, so they are ecstatic when I speak Spanish to them. Plus I often ask them to help me with my Spanish.

A lot of the middle class young people of all races are dicks, but that is true anywhere. The less assimilated Mexicans are way friendlier than the more assimilated ones. Apparently assimilating to American culture involves turning into an asshole.

The town has a bit of a run-down feel to it, but I am used to barrios. It is nothing like a ghetto. Most people are working class, and the Mexicans are quite Left. The Whites are all very rightwing.

One thing I will say though is that Mexicans are just not very smart. They are definitely smarter than Blacks, but that’s not saying much. They are interesting people especially if they are from Mexico recently, but intellectuals they are not. They are not hostile to intellectualism. They are intrigued by it but also sort of indifferent.

Mexican women are pretty much untouchable as far as I can tell. I have had very bad luck with them. Most of them don’t really put out that much anyway as they have this good girl/bad girl, Madonna/whore, virgin/whore thing going on.

A lot of the people around here are working class, and many are simply not very attractive. I am not sure why that is, but often poor people are not very good-looking. A lot of people around here are fat, and the Mexicans have a bad diet. Everyone lives off junk food. The true Mexican food is better for you. There is a lot of great Mexican food to be had, and I buy it all the time.

You feel safe walking around?

Generally, yes. But I stopped going for midnight and 3 AM walks. People told me to stop. A friend of mine had a couple of people try to rob him on his door to door job. Most people do not mess with me though because supposedly I look scary. Walking around in the daytime is nothing. I do it all the time.

There much risk from gangs or kids in the street?

No, none whatsoever. The only problem is when you make the mistake of making friends with these idiots and having them over to your house and whatnot, which is what I did. Simply do not associate with them, and you will be fine. Some of the younger kids age 12-15 are real shits, but they do not bother me too much anymore.

The people friendly?

Extremely. See above.


Filed under California, Hispanics, Mexicans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, West

Westernization and Re-Africanization of New World Blacks

Jason Y writes:

What about blacks? Again, no connection to race, the bad attributes of some of them are due to choice, and environment. The genetic role is way exaggerated.

I used to believe that about Black people too, until I started doing some research on the Blacks of the Caribbean and then I had extensive dealings with the Blacks of Africa. It slowly began to dawn one. This is an exaggeration of course, but my God!

They’re the same everywhere!

That’s what I thought.

It isn’t 100% true of course. But a lot of the stereotypes we have about US Blacks, good and bad, are reproduced with amazing accuracy in the Caribbean and then to a far greater extent, at least on the downside. As far as the negative side, African Blacks reproduce all of the negative qualities of US Blacks, except African Blacks display these qualities in far more exaggerated ways.

Bottom line is that as much as we like to put down US Blacks, they are far more civilized than African Blacks, and I think they are even more civilized than Caribbean Blacks, who have done a pretty good job of being civilizational incompetents down there. I will say though that Caribbean Blacks also are much more civilized than African Blacks.

This begs the question of why, as their genes are the same.

US Blacks do have some White in them at 17% of their gene pool. Is that really enough to dramatically change their behavior for the better. Caribbean Blacks are 9% White on average. Inject 10-20% White in a Black man and he acts vastly better? I am very dubious of this. Also the IQ increases in US Blacks are far above what we might expect to see based on White admixture. With White admixture alone, US Black IQ might be 73. Yet it is much higher than that at 86. British Jamaican Blacks also hit 86, while Jamaican Blacks back home score 72. Simply by being born and raised in the UK, a Jamaican Black gains an incredible 14 IQ points!

Similarly, US Black IQ’s are 13 points higher than we would expect them to be based on White admixture.

What’s going on?

Blacks have been breeding eugenically. Since 1900, Black head size has increased dramatically, and in addition, archaic features have faded while more progressive features have heightened. Hence modern Blacks and Whites look more like each other than either resembles their own ancestors.

I believe that some combination of eugenic breeding, epigenetic factors, improved environment and nutrition probably account for the unexpected 13 point IQ rise in US Blacks.

For UK Blacks, it is probably just an improved environment that is raising IQ’s by up to 14 points.

In addition, Blacks have been in the US for 200-350 years. During at least a good portion of that time, they were Christianized and in addition, they were raised under the umbrella of White civilization. White civilization is generally a civilizing environment. US Blacks were Christianized, Westernized and raised in a civilizing White environment for up to 350 years. Over that period, I would assume that a lot of the African has gone out of US Blacks.

In addition, Caribbean Blacks seem much more civilized than US Blacks. They are experiencing a booming Flynn Effect in IQ, but so is Kenya for that matter. What else is going on? Most Caribbean Blacks, like US Blacks, have been raised under White civilization for about as long as US Blacks have.

The best developed Caribbean islands have a White core that holds down the ship, creates and helps maintain a civilized appearance and keeps the economy chugging along. It’s not that Bahamas is where it is simply due to its 13% White population, but I believe that that small White core plays a role in “holding down the ship” or “keeping the train on its tracks.” That is, if that White population left the Bahamas next year, I believe that over a relatively brief period of time, the Bahamas would sink.

The equivalent of Africa in the Caribbean is Haiti. There are many Caribbean islands that are nearly all Black and which only have a miniscule White population. However, most of these were White colonies for a long time and long has a solid White core to hold down the ship and keep things moving along.

Haiti has not only lacked a White colonizer for 2 centuries, but for 200 it has not only lacked a White core, but furthermore, has developed completely in the absence of any White civilizational structure to envelope or or even to keep the trains running. Haiti is what you get when you pull all the White people out of a New World Black population and let Black culture take over. The result is a return to Africa. And indeed, in Haiti, African civilizational structures in many forms have carried on to this very day. Haiti is a Black nation that has been “re-Africanized.”

Pull all the Whites out of any New World Black population and over time, a Haiti situation should develop. It may take some time, but that seems to be the inevitable result.

“Back to Africa” or re-Africanization can even occur in the 1st World. In the worst of our inner city Black ghettos, much of the sheen of 350 years of civilizing impulse seems to have weathered away. And indeed, the scariest slums of America nearly resemble the squalor, casual violence, disease, dysfunction, chaos, dilapidated, corrupt, criminalized and insipid modern African nations.

At the same time, during horrific national disasters like Hurricane Katrina with no government response, law stripped bare and society gone anarchic, the civilizational veneer is rapidly stripped off and Africa comes rushing in as sure as those roiling muddy 30-foot killer waves.

In short, long exposure to White civilization has been excellent for New World Blacks. Their health, education, lifestyle, values, and behavior are all dramatically improved by growing up in under the cloak of a White society. Indeed, a White tent over the land may even be good for Black people’s brains at the physical level. Culture is a powerful superstructure that can drastically alter human beings socially and maybe even physically.

Yet in the darkest ghettos or when all Hell breaks loose and the rule of law withers away, even US Blacks can re-Africanize very quickly, even in a matter of days.


Filed under Africa, American, Americas, Blacks, Britain, Caribbean, Culture, Europe, Haiti, Intelligence, Latin America, North America, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, Whites