Category Archives: Urban Studies

What It is Like to Be on Section 8

If section 8 is so tough, then obviously they don’t permit bad blacks. Where do these bad blacks live though?

Blacks can live on Section 8 and act bad for a while, but pretty soon, there will be an inspection or they will mess up the paperwork, and then they will be thrown off. When they throw you off, they do it in a really mean way, and my friends tell me it seems like the Section 8 people like to kick people off for some reason.

And once you are thrown off Section 8, I think you might be thrown off for life.

I am not sure where bad Black tenants go. I guess they just go live somewhere else. I mean most ghetto people are probably not in Section 8 housing.

I do not live in Section 8 myself, and I have never lived on it, but I have a pretty low income, so sometimes I am tempted…Yet I have a few White friends who live on Section 8 (around here it is not unusual for White people to live in Section 8 housing).

Section 8 housing is really hardass. You do not have to be an angel, but you cannot mess up at all. I think you cannot even get convicted of a crime when you are on Section 8. Or possibly no one in your household can be convicted of a crime. My White friends on Section 8 told me that they are deathly afraid of getting arrested and convicted of some petty crime because then they will lose their Section 8.

You are also banned from using drugs in Section 8 housing. They catch anyone in your household using drugs, any drug, even one time, and you are gone. Some of my White Section 8 friends do use drugs (pot), but they haven’t gotten into trouble yet.

Also you cannot be a nuisance tenant causing problems with the landlord and other tenants like making too much noise, fighting, or getting complaints from the neighbors.

My White friends on Section 8 tell me that they try to live angelic lives so as not to get thrown off Section 8. Keeping the drug use on the downlow, not making too much noise, fighting or causing problems, not getting complaints from neighbors, staying in good with the landlord, not getting arrested or especially convicted of a crime, and especially keeping the place from being thrashed because there are regular and I mean regular inspections.


Filed under Government, Local, Sociology, Urban Studies

The Truth about Section 8 Housing

Sam writes:

Well I have. I have a friend who rents section 8 houses to Negroes. Negro women with five kids. No job. He most of time makes decent money at this, but it’s a gamble because they ALWAYS destroy the houses. His gamble is does he make enough money rent before they make the house uninhabitable and move out. Then you have to redo everything in the house. It’s expensive. If they stay a while, he makes money. If they’re particularly savage, he loses.

If you thrash the dwelling, you are automatically thrown off Section 8. I have some White friends who are on Section 8, and I believe this complex here takes Section 8, though I am not on it myself. I have been told that the Section 8 clients here are quite good and they do not destroy the place at all. If they are any tenants engaging in any monkey business at all, they are thrown out quite quickly by the corporation that runs this place.

My White friends on Section 8 told me it is very strict, and you cannot thrash the place one bit. There are regular inspections and there is a ton of paperwork you have to do on a regular basis. If you do not do the paperwork, you are thrown right off Section 8. They love to throw people off, and they do it all the time. A friend of mine failed a Section 8 inspection because they had cats and the litter box smelled. They are strict as Hell here.

I believe this complex does take Section 8 and some tenants are on it. First of all, you can’t be on Section 8 unless you work or have an income. It’s not free housing. It’s just discounted. Section 8 has certainly not ruined this complex, but our landlord is pretty strict. I think this crap about Section 8 destroying whole cities is nonsense. In the White towns around here, all the landlords refuse to take Section 8. The only cities that take it are the poorer ones with lots of Hispanics.

I have some White friends on Section 8. It is a good deal if you can get it. I would not mind getting it myself, but there is I believe a 2-year waiting list here. I have been to the apartments of my White friends on Section 8. They are very clean and kept up as nice as anyplace.


Filed under Government, Local, Sociology, Urban Studies

Baltimore and Detroit Were Not Created by “Welfare”

Sam writes:

We can’t go on paying Women to just have kids whenever they feel like it and not support them. We don’t need any more Detroits or Baltimores.

Actually, those poor Black women are going to have kids and as many kids as they want to whether they get a welfare check or not. Baltimore and Detroit were not created by welfare. They were created by Black people.

Black people create Baltimores and Detroits in many parts of the world, seemingly wherever they go. They create these places where there are a lot of social programs, and they create them where there are zero social programs. Actually when you cut off Blacks from social programs like in the 3rd World, they tend to act a lot worse. If you cut poor Blacks off of social programs, then they will be way more poor than they already are. The poorer Blacks are, the worse they act. Cutting them off won’t work. It will just make ghettos even more awful.

You realize that conservatives lie about why they hate welfare, right?


Filed under Blacks, Conservatism, Government, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Decay, Urban Studies

“Designated Shitting Streets”

Click to enlarge. Designated shitting streets.

Click to enlarge. “Designated shitting streets.”

An Internet Hindu tries to defend Bharat Mata by arguing that Indians do not shit on your average Indian street. Instead, they actually do so on designated shitting streets. LOL.

I am wondering who designated these streets to be designated shitting streets anyway? The town or city? The county? The state? The national government? The police? The health department, assuming there even is one.

Or was it just done by local consensus, say a bunch of Indians get together and say, “Hey, let’s designate Elephant Jockey Street as a designated shitting street? What do you say?”

“But why Elephant Jockey Street? That’s a major thoroughfare!”

“Yeah, thoroughfare for beggars and hustlers! That place is three turdlets short of a pantload! Hell, it could use some more poop on it! Nothing but curryniggers on Elephant Jockey Street anyway.”

“Hey! Who you calling a currynigger?”

“Not me. Not you. We’re Honorary Aryans, remember? Don’t you remember 3,500 years ago when we came sweeping down off the steppes on horse-drawn chariots? I remember it like yesterday!”

“Yeah ok. Screw those curryniggers. Elephant Jockey Street it is! EJ Street is now a Designated Shitting Street!”



“Three cheers for EJ Street!”

“Three poops for EJ Street!”

“Jai Hind!”

“Jai Hind!”

You know you live in a great, modern, up and coming First World industrialized Superpower when you have actual Designated Shitting Streets. I mean Third World countries are so backwards they don’t even have those. You can just squat on any old lane and dump a load on the sidewalk and walk away like nothing happened. How primitive!

By the way, here is Poo, India. At first I thought Poo was the real name for the whole shitty country and they just called it India to be polite, but instead it’s just the name of one shitty little town.


Filed under Asia, India, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, Urban Studies

Are There Many Gays in My City?

Optimus Prime writes:

Very interesting post Robert. I am shuddered to think what would a society be like once its completely taken over by homosexuals. On an other note, is homosexuality that much rampant in the place where you live? are there any projections that it might skyrocket in the near future.

Hi, there are few homosexuals in my city. This city is majority Hispanic. Hispanics seriously hate this stuff, and there is little open homosexuality in their cultures. There are also quite a few ghetto type Blacks here. They also hate open homosexuality, and there is not much of it in their areas. There are also some Indian people, mostly Punjabis. Punjabis do not accept open homosexuality one bit. There rest of the city is White, but the Whites are mostly working class and poor Whites. Those type of Whites have never been keen on open homosexuality.

There are a few obvious homosexuals who work in this city, but I am not sure if they live here. I doubt if they live here. Obvious homosexuals working in my town would probably not live here. Instead they would probably live in Fresno. Many people who look/act more class/decent or have better paying jobs do not live in this city. Instead, they live in Fresno. This is a poor city, and a lot of people think it is some sort of slum. That’s really not true, but that is the perception. There are actually some extremely wealthy neighborhoods in this town in the outlying areas.

There is a gay neighborhood in Fresno called the Tower District, and the homophobes like to make a big deal out of it. They do have a Gay Pride Parade every year, but I do not think it is a very popular event. Fresno is a city of 420,000 people, so it makes sense that there is a gay area.

Funny thing though is if you go to the Tower District, you will not see many open gays. You might not see any!

What you will see are hipsters. Hipsters, artists, musicians, literary, artsy types. Punkers, fashionistas, and lots of trendy young people.

There are some music outlets, restaurants and coffeeshops there. Once when I was in line at a coffeeshop, these two gays kissed each other right in front of me and I felt this strong feeling of revulsion, but I always feel that when I see two guys kiss because I have a strong aversive reaction to that for some reason. I have felt that way my whole life, since I was a little boy.

A friend of mine lived in the Tower, and he said most of the people who lived there were not gay.

I do not like to live in places where there are huge open gay neighborhoods. It is very disturbing and unsettling, and I do not like having to deal with open gays all the time.

For one thing, they really like me and come after me a lot. I visited San Fransisco for a few days in 1992, and there were definitely some homosexuals after me when I was there, but they were and are easily avoided. A lot of the time they would just stare at me like they were frozen in space or hypnotized, which is exactly the way female strangers act when they want you. Some of them started talking to me casually, but then one of them talking to me would give me a strange vibe that continued through the conversation. Then he could walk away staring at me.

All of that sort of thing is a type of come-on, but it’s not that serious and it’s easily ignored. I assume females must have to deal with weird sexual psychological vibes and sexual stares from men all the time. They deal with it just fine, so men should be able to too.

I like my city with no open gays in it very much, thank you. I actually think gays are better absorbed when they are not open. They don’t have to be closeted, but they don’t have to be particularly open either. You can be out without being open. It’s not that hard to do.


Filed under Blacks, California, Culture, East Indians, Hispanics, Homosexuality, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sex, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, West, Whites

“Things Were Great In Cuba Under Batista”

Santoculto writes:

Even in the Fulgencio Batista era, Cuba have lower crime rates as well good social indicators.

I do not know what crime was like in Cuba in the 1950’s but I do know that Organized Crime called the Mafia ran the whole island, so there was a lot of organized crime.

And there was Jim Crow segregation all over the country, even in Havana. And it was as bad as this system ever was in the US South. It was on that level. It doesn’t sound like Black people had it so well.

That whole line about good social indicators in the 1950’s is no good. Life was good if you were a middle class or wealthy person who lived in Havana. Everyone else had lousy lives. There were a lot of urban poor, and they lived like crap. And there was an incredible amount of poverty in the rural areas. Almost all of the doctors were located in Havana and took cash.

It took quite some time for the Castroites to wire up the whole island and give everyone electricity, get everyone into a decent house, get clean water to everyone, get sewage systems built, build the schools that needed to be built and build up the medical infrastructure. It was a great big project, and it took a long time. That right there implies that things were not so cool before 1959 because if everyone had clean water, power, a decent house, a sewage system, and all the schools and medical centers they needed, none of this infrastructure would have had to have been developed, correct?


Filed under Americas, Caribbean, Crime, Cuba, Government, History, Latin America, Modern, Organized Crime, Race Relations, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, The Americas, Urban Decay, Urban Studies

Yet Another Media Lie: “Chavez Caused a Crime Wave”

tulio writes:

Crime also skyrocketed under Chavez despite whatever improvements he made for the poor.

The crime wave was extremely high for decades before Chavez even got in, especially in the 1980’s. Crime has been out of control in Venezuela for maybe 50 years now.

The most bizarre thing about this critique is that it actually blames a President for a crime wave. Now how on Earth could a government cause a crime wave? Can you show me how any government on Earth right now is actually causing a crime wave? It’s not even possible.

Take that argument to any criminologist. Tell him Chavez caused a crime wave in Venezuela, and he will cruelly laugh right in your face.

Crime is a sociological problem, which is why criminology is a branch of sociology. It is caused by various factors in societal, most of which the government has little or no control over.

Crime skyrocketed in the US in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Have you ever heard of one person saying Johnson, Nixon, Ford or Carter actually caused the crime explosion? How the Hell did they do that? How could they? How could a US government cause a crime wave anyway? Show me one crime wave in the US that was ever caused by the government.

Crime is very bad in Venezuela, but the Opposition is crying crocodile tears. It is not they who are being victimized by all this crime. There is little serious violent crime going on in the wealthy areas. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, vast slums popped up all over the outskirts of Caracas and other big cities. These slums were disastrous places to live as all slums are. It is here that almost all of the violent crime is occurring. In a word, the poor are slaughtering each other in their favelas and ramshackle neighborhoods. And why should the Venezuelan rich care about that? They don’t. In fact, it probably makes them happy.

Honduras is also experiencing a crime wave now, as is El Salvador and Guatemala and Mexico.

The Salvadoran crime wave has been ongoing over 25 years through various different governments with little change. How about if someone explains to me how these various Salvadoran governments caused all this crime.

Similarly, there has been wild crime via several regimes in Guatemala. Can someone explain to me how these different Guatemalan regimes all caused this crime wave?

Honduras has the worst crime on Earth right now. Have you ever heard anyone blame it on the government? Can someone tell me how these various Honduran governments are causing all this crime?

The Chavistas have done most of the things that a state can do in these circumstances. They put a lot more cops on the street I believe, and they undertook a major reform of the police. The police are part of the problem. In Venezuela, “police” and “criminal” mean the same thing. The cops are the criminals are the same people. Most of the cops are crooks themselves. A lot of the people committing all this crime are the Venezuelan police. They also have a reputation for extreme brutality ,and there have been efforts to re-educate them in that regard.

Venezuelan prisons are some of the worst Hellholes this side of the Styx River. In fact, they serve as an excellent example of the insane conservative attitude that if you only made prisons evil and horrific enough that no sane person would want to spend an hour there, this would be a great way to reduce the crime rate via the threat of being thrown into a Hellhole.

But Venezuela has some of the worst prisons on Earth, and this has been the case for a long time now. Clearly creating diabolical prisons doesn’t do much to lower the crime rate.

There has been a major effort underway to reform Venezuela’s prisons as the thinking is that these horrific prisons are actually causing a lot more crime than they are preventing, which is often the case in lands with horrible prisons.

My understanding is that all of these governments, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Venezuela, have done about all they can do to stop these crime waves, but there is only so much the state can do short of putting in totalitarianism. I would like for someone to tell me how Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras could end  their crime waves. Anyone?

I would like the Chavista critics to tell me a few things.

  • How did Chavez cause this crime wave? Please explain in detail. I am very curious about this as I am dumbfounded about how governments cause crime waves.
  • How exactly are the Chavistas supposed to deal with this crime wave? What sort of steps should they be taking that they are not doing? I am not aware of any.
  • How exactly was the Venezuelan opposition going to end this crime wave? They talked it up a lot during the election campaign, but they were short on details. Actually they had no details whatsoever. Please explain what the Opposition would do differently to fight this crime wave and how they would be better at it than the Chavistas.
  • Cities and states that are run by both Chavistas and the opposition equally have horrible crime. Explain how this makes sense, that governors and mayors of both the Chavistas and the opposition have been unable to dent the crime wave.


Filed under Americas, Central America, Corrections, Crime, Criminology, El Salvador, Government, Guatemala, Honduras, Latin America, Law enforcement, Mexico, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South America, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, Venezuela

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