Progressives Are Paying $800 a Month To Live In Bugman Capsules In Los Angeles

Good morning, Clown World!

What’s going on today in liberal democracy which we all know is the greatest and most glorious form of government ever devised by the genius of man?

Today it is young liberals and progressives who cannot afford homes or apartments in Los Angeles who are turning to living as incels in capsules:

Yahoo News:

“Los Angeles (AFP) – Kay Wilson packed up her life in a hurry and moved to Los Angeles… only to find that what she paid in Pennsylvania for a nice studio apartment would only get her a 2.9-square-meter box in California.

Her new home is a capsule, inspired by the famous hotels in Japan.

Wilson arrived a month ago at UP(st)ART, a community for young people with artistic aspirations in need of an affordable place to live.

Each room contains up to six capsules, which Wilson describes as “cozy.” They contain a single bed, a bar for hanging clothes, a few compartments for storing shoes and other items and an air vent.

By most standards, the accommodation is still not cheap — $750 per month plus taxes. That works out at around $800, which is slightly more than the 26-year-old was paying in Bethlehem, around 70 miles outside Philadelphia. …

Among the rules: women and men sleep apart, and having sex is not an option. …

Still, the capsule-living concept is also catching on in other expensive US cities including New York.”

Sounds awesome.

What do I know? I’m just an Alabama redneck and a racist.

The following excerpt comes from Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman’s book Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery.

“Unfortunately, the census did not collect information on the size or the quality of slave houses. Descriptions in plantation records and in travelers’ accounts are fragmentary. They suggest a considerable range in the quality of housing. The best were three- or four-room cottages, of wood frame, brick, or stone construction, with up to eight hundred square feet of space on the inside, and large porches on the outside. Such cottages had brick or stone chimneys and glazed windows. At the other pole were single-room log cabins without windows. Chimneys were constructed of twigs and clay; floors were either earthen or made of planks resting directly on the earth.

Comments of observers suggest that the most typical slave houses of the late antebellum period were cabins about eighteen by twenty feet. They usually had one or two rooms. Lofts, on which the children slept, were also quite common. Windows were not glazed, but closed by wooden shutters. Some houses also had rear doors. Chimneys were usually constructed of brick or stone. The building material was usually logs or wood. Seams in the log cabins were sealed by wooden splits and mud. Floors were usually planked and raised off the ground.

While such housing is quite mean by modern standards, the houses of slaves compared well with the housing of free workers in the antebellum era. It must be remembered that much of rural America still lived in log cabins in the 1850s. And urban workers lived in crowded, filthy tenements. One should not be misled by the relatively spacious accommodations in which U.S. working-class families live today. That is an achievement of very recent times. As late as 1893, a survey of the housing of workers in New York City revealed that the median number of square feet of sleeping space per person was just thirty five. In other words, the “typical slave cabin of the late antebellum era probably contained more sleeping space per person than was available to most of New York City’s workers half a century later.”

How about another joke?

The average progressive urbanite pod person in Los Angeles in 2019 is paying $800 a month to live in involuntary celibacy in a cozy 2.9 square-meter box. In 1893, the average worker in New York City at the height of the Gilded Age had 35 square meters of sleeping space and our slaves on Southern plantations in the antebellum era had even better accommodations!

Note: I strongly recommend what Bjørn Andreas Bull-Hansen said about the crisis of masculinity in America’s crowded cities.

About Hunter Wallace 12366 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. I used to live in an old antebellum slave shack behind a property I was working for. Tbh was kinda nice. Last time I was in one I made this exact observation– its way nicer than most of the living accomodations in Sim City Libertarian Edition.

  2. and these progressives, who fork out $800. 00 USD or (in Master’s currency) $2801.00 ILS, the majority of them – I hazard a guess – are white liberal females….yes????

  3. I’ve been to most of the local plantations, and the housing for the field hands is better than the housing of most small farmers and settlers, which is backed up by old photographs. The slave houses that I mention are mostly ruins, but were solid tabby structures with fireplaces and covered porches. They were solid and had Windows. I think most settlers and small farmers lived in shacks by comparison. I’m not sure how the higher ranking slaves lived, and I assume that less prosperous plantations provided worse housing, but slaves were too valuable to neglect.

    I’m not a defender of slavery or the old order, that didn’t do much for most whites, so I’m not trying to paint a rosy picture of slave life.

    • Laura Ingalls Wilder spoke often of living in SOD houses (like badgers in the dirt) while they were ‘homesteading.’ Truly, Niggers have never had it better, and their ingratitude, and stupidity are reason enough to SEND THEM ALL BACK!

  4. Yes, the idiots don’t understand the consequences of mass immigration and the resulting overcrowding. While Chinese and Russian mobsters buy up the best of SoCal, along wi Arab turd worlders.

    LA use to be known for cheap , hi quality housing, but not now.

    Still cheaper than San Fran, where you get a bunk in a dorm room for $1500/mo.

    Ah, the benefits multicultural diversity cesspool mass immigration.

    Not long, till the US looks like the slums of India.

  5. I watched a movie, decades ago, at a pal’s house. He was trying to revive the Golden Dawn. I thought his ideas were silly; I told him I’d only join his group if I could wear fabulous outfits, at the time, based on Barbara Stanwyck’s wardrobe in “The Lady Eve”. He was non-plussed, but every-one else thought the idea was hilarious.

    He showed us all this movie, based on the film-maker’s conception of the Golden Dawn, and I have NOT been able to recall to or to track down the name of the movie. The scenes I remember – and this is all I remember – is that an Architect wanted to build beautiful spacious homes for Humans to live in. The ideas were very Bauhausian – airy, spacious, everything white and gleaming, but with more graceful lines. Not so squared off. Lovely.

    Then, as society advanced, it was determined that people didn’t need these huge spaces. The homes got smaller and smaller and smaller. The final scene, in this sequence, depicted the ultimate Home design. The scene was shot in a circus arena, and a bunch of expensively dressed, but very ugly people were sitting in the stands. The home was in the center of the arena. The intended occupant was a beautiful blond woman, who was totally naked, being pushed and shoved around the dirt of the arena floor. The Architect was explaining, in a very languid, placid voice, that the workers in the future don’t need clothing, it takes too much time to dress, change clothes, clean the clothes, etc and that all needs would be taken care of, so why would workers need clothing? That this was much more efficient. The woman was being forced to circle the arena, as she was being brought to the new home. She would up being whipped onto her knees, and forced to crawl into her new home. It was a small wooden box, and her body just fit in it. She could sleep there, untroubled by any lost time spent on possessions, for when she wasn’t working.

    The box, of course, was a coffin. Very efficient.

    I wish I could find out the name of the movie.

  6. I’ve been in tents with more room. Plus, you can move tents around to places with better scenery if you want, for a lot less money than what it takes to live in those progressive sh*tholes. Those lefty idiots are willingly living in their overlords’ vision of the brave new world, and paying for the “privilege.” This is more proof that IQs are falling. The homeless in La La Land have more freedom of movement, and they get to crap wherever they want. When modern urban living is more advantageous for the homeless, you know the society is in freefall.

  7. I would move to the countryside in a heartbeat. However there are few single women to meet there. All the single women are in the cities. And here’s the rub: none of them want to settle down in their twenties. And if they want a boyfriend they can have their pick because men are desperate and get the raw end of the modern dating market. For the man who wants to settle down and start a family, few good options exist.

  8. After the Civil War the remaining “little houses” of the servants were converted to children’s playhouses, and, outbuildings.

    I’m sure there are any number of academic papers that have been written about servants quarters in the Olde South. I remember reading one paper where the archeologists were shocked to find gun parts in their digs.

  9. So living in these sardine sized pods is like living in prison and its not even cheap, so you pay up the ass for less space so I don’t really get it. If these pods were cheap it might make sense but its expensive and there is literally no pay off as the girl in the article had a nice studio apartment she was paying the same price

    The whole point of the pod hotels in japan was at least inspired because the other much nicer Japanese hotel was 300 bucks a night and the pod was like $65 but 800 a month to live in a small pod pfft forget it thats nuts

  10. There’s a lot of really nice apartments available in Hollywood. Not everyone who lives there is wealthy and not everything is unaffordable.

  11. We really need a Pol Pot to take care of people like this. Depopulated the parasitic cities and force their denizens to do something useful.

    • At this point I’m in agreement.

      Put these morons onto collective farms and make them learn the meaning of work.

      We need to update our infrastructure?

      How about 1 million bugmen working on highways (by hand) through the mountains in December?

Comments are closed.