SUBSCRIBE!
My name is Anatoly Karlin and I currently live in California. My professional webpage is @ http://akarlin.com/. I am a university student who is probably going to major in history, though I’m not excluding political science or economics. I imagine myself doing something like world history / world systems and modeling it mathematically (see cliodynamics) and going into academia in the future. Or starting a cult, perhaps I’ll give that a try. 
A few things about the bio. First, I won’t dwell on topics such as which schools I went to, what my hobbies are or what my favorite flavor of ice cream is – these things are banal and uninteresting. If you’re curious, look at the pics or Google me up. Second, yes I know its probably politically incorrect, so don’t bother bitching about it. Third, this is not meant to be 100% accurate – some things need to be simplified, and some I don’t care to include.
My name is derived from the Greek Anatolius, meaning “sunrise”, and the surname Karlin indicates some east-central European Jewish ancestry. Many of my ancestors were state servants (one branch of whom were ennobled under late Tsarism), and Daghestani notables through matrilineal descent.
Though born in Russia, I was taken to the West at an early age. Like many scientists after the Soviet collapse, my father emigrated so as to be able to continue doing research. Much of this time was spent in a bleak, post-industrial town in England’s North-West. Fortunately, it had Europe’s largest bus station so at least getting the hell out of there was easy after finishing high school.
Though formally a British citizen, I don’t particularly care for the UK and will certainly not return there. Unlike Americans, they cannot accept foreigners as fully British unless they utterly reject their cultural roots – a physical impossibility for me since I never lost my Russian accent. Their nationalism, though quiet and aloof, is all too real and manifests itself especially virulently in the form of Russophobia*.
Not surprisingly, many of my reflections over the years have centered around my national and cultural identity. Realizing that I was a stranger in a strange land, I developed a sentimental interest toward Russia, which was only reinforced by my social alienation and a dawning awareness of the lies and smears directed against it by the Western media.
Dismissing Russia was fashionable in the 1990’s, when Yeltsin’s cronies were pillaging the nation. Back then I was a Russophobe, like all Russian patriots. Yet recent years brought back hope to the people, and to me. Now I am convinced Russia should ignore Western attempts to impose its false values upon it, and instead forge its own path to universal utopia, while battling the five heresies that proved so deadly in its history: предательство, пораженчество, пессимизм, продажность, преклонение перед западом.
Whenever I visited Russia most of my relatives insisted on labeling me as English; and if I tried protesting it, some rejoined that I have an over-idealized view of Russia. They insisted that I didn’t understand, but actually I understood them perfectly. But those traitors had a point. In effect I was not just an inostranets (foreigner), but a bezstranets, a dude without a country, a rootless cosmopolitan.
This is a most unnatural state of affairs, since all people need a strong belief and sense of belonging to retain their sanity. These psychological issues probably explain my attraction to simplification, to desert-like forms. At times these included subscription to fundamentalist religion or radical political ideologies ranging from hard-line Stalinism to Fukuyama’s “end of history” eschatology.
Yet in practice I’m an extremely non-ideological atheist who likes to take contrary positions just for the sake of it. I also hold a deeply quantum view of truth, believing that all interpretations are to a certain degree valid. So far from wearing ideological blinkers, this reveals a profound, unstable absence, or illusion, of belief rather than belief itself. This is either a mere coping mechanism or madness, you decide.
I think my defining theme is aversion to hypocrisy in society, which is particularly widespread in the West. Yet hypocrisy is a product of the intellect and of civilization. Hence my attraction to the idea of apocalypse, the sublime, etc. Unfortunately, who I am – a traitor to Russia, an unanchored intellectual, a pro-Western nihilist – makes me the biggest hypocrite of all. I confess to my hypocrisy and my treason. Sublime oblivion is my dream of redemption.
I find resonance in Spengler’s portrayal of the West as a Faustian civilization doomed to eternal frustration in its search for the unattainable infinite, and his future prophecies about its decline and the coming of the new Caesars are inspiring. I look up to the concept of the absurd revolt developed by Camus. Meursault is the literary character I most identify with, although Kundera’s Tomáš and Tarkovsky’s Stalker come close. San Manuel Bueno, mártir by Miguel de Unamuno is the most poignant and hopeful text I’ve ever read.
Not surprisingly, my favorite music is Romantic (Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Wagner, etc), Russian folk music, uplifting military marches and cheesy pop. I sometimes play the piano.
Facebook’s “Big Five” personality test describes me as “Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving”:
INTPs are quiet, thoughtful, analytical individuals who don’t mind spending long periods of time on their own, working through problems and forming solutions. INTPs tend to be less at ease in social situations and the ‘caring professions,’ although they enjoy the company of those who share their interests. They also tend to be impatient with the bureaucracy, rigid hierarchies, and politics prevalent in many professions, preferring to work informally with others as equals. INTPs’ extraverted intuition often gives them a quick wit, especially with language, and they can defuse the tension in gatherings by comical observations and references. They can be charming, even in their quiet reserve, and are sometimes surprised by the high esteem in which their friends and colleagues hold them.
I started the blog Da Russophile in January 2008 and you can read about the reasons why, and my experiences writing it, here. I’ll add a few more things. First, I believe I’m just about the only blogger idiotic enough to explicitly admit to a partisan bias, but its a price worth paying to avoid hypocrisy. Second, as I said I am a contrarian and want to stick the facts into the faces of the Russophobes who run Western editorial policies on Russia. Third, blogging is a kind of therapy for my psychological issues.
My political beliefs are highly idiosyncratic. I am economically centrist, socially liberal and supportive of liberal democracy, albeit with a populist authoritarian streak. As long as the government isn’t run by religious nutjobs and allows me to write my blog, run a business, own a gun and travel freely, I’m cool with them.
Small and medium businesses should face minimal regulation and taxes should be kept low, except in the cases of very rich people and inheritances. However, there should be a coherent industrial policy for strategic industries and stringent environmental controls on excessive polluters. The US should halt its deindustrialization, because as past empires like Habsburg Spain showed, if you don’t have a manufacturing base and the flow of gold (cheap credit) dries up, you will fall from the ranks of the Great Powers.
I am generally opposed to welfarism and socialism. Though I concede it works in disciplined nations like Sweden or Japan, this is not the case in the US or Russia. However, the state has a duty to invest heavily in human capital (subsidized education, retraining programs, elementary healthcare provision), physical infrastructure and basic social support during recessions. I also propose encouraging the growth of communes like the Israeli kibbutzim in the country to manage social stresses.
All drugs that can be grown should be legalized, as should all kinds of firearms. Abortion should be freely available. We should strive towards free movement of labor and common markets across North America, Europe, the CIS, Japan and all other developed countries. I don’t feel strongly on the death penalty either way, although in excessively violent or corrupt countries I would support it. I support the goals of the feminist and LGBT movements. I support the development of an artificial womb and building incubator factories to further feminism and control the population size. I also propose a fat tax to limit healthcare costs and reduce obesity.
Foreign policy should be pragmatic and in line with the national interest, without any of the counter-productive cultural imperialism that characterized the Bush Doctrine. So far Obama has been spot on, making only symbolic gestures that increase goodwill but without any real unilateral concessions – Realpolitik at its best. The US should, except to the extent that it risks its vital interests, try to increase global unity to better face the energy, environmental and technological challenges of the twenty-first century.
Speaking of which, I am currently planning to write a book on that subject this summer, with the provisional title Sublime Oblivion. I don’t want to give away too much, but the gist of it is that: I want to intertwine current global trends into a plausible scenario, or “future history”, featuring a) GW and energy depletion related events, b) the effects of economic trends and technological acceleration on society, warfare, etc and c) a very special and sublime end of history. RAFO.
* Some Brits have expressed to me their surprise or even dismay at this unflattering portrayal in the year after this article was first written. I do not mean to imply that Britain is uniquely or even especially bad in this respect. From what I’ve heard, France is substantially worse, and my relatively rosy view of the US may have been skewed by living as I do in the cosmopolitan Bay Area, instead of some backwoods as was the case in the UK. Unlike in Britain, there is no real pressure to integrate in the US, but ironically its absence actually makes its assimilative attraction stronger. I also acknowledge that some migrants do find Britain very accommodating for their temperaments and psychological profile. After all, some British Muslims become successful investment bankers or TV presenters, others sit on welfare, a few blow up buses. People differ much more than countries.
Jan 2010: What I Believe: 2 Year Update
You are a handsome guy
AK, thanks for this bio, it is very enlightening – I wish I had read it sooner. Basically, you’ve never lived in Russia as an adult and you observe and comment on it from afar just as the Western media does. Please don’t take offense, it’s just that I’ve spent about 20% of my life there and have gone to school, managed a business, etc., there, so perhaps your extremely well-written but (as I now understand) rather theoretical thoughts about Russia have lost a bit of credibility in my mind now that I understand you have chosen not to live there. Again, please don’t take offense, I’d probably prefer SF too. And feel free to delete this comment in the event that you do find it to be offensive in some way.
AK responds: I don’t delete stuff, but I will add an important clarification – I never got that choice.
Lyndon, sorry to say, your point is silly. With all your professed Russian expertise based on living in the country, your views on the situation in Russia are in the vast minority among Russians (what I noticed when I scanned through your blog). While Anatoly, even if he lives in SF, roughly falls in line with mainstream Russian opinion.
I think this demonstrates that regardless of what country you reside in, you really live in your own little world. Global trend analysis, such as what your blogs are designed for, needs to be based on a variety of sources, 99% of which have nothing to do with personal experience, and on an open mind, which in your case is doubtful if you consider the fact that you live in Russia, yet your opinion on life around you is not representative of Russian population as a whole.
Would your personal experience of living in Russia enable you to write a better quality demographic analysis compared to what Anatoly has accomplished? I doubt it. If you write about it based on your own limited experience, it will be worthless. Ditto for other topics covered in this blog.
From the view of earnest advocacy, it’s far better to deal with the facts and fact based opinions that are related to the actual subject covered.
Many Americans in the US are ignorant of American history and foreign policy. Likewise with other folks not knowing much about their nation of origin.
In the past, I’ve faced some rather sleazy personal swipes that noticeably gloss over what was actually said by me. I’ve made it a point to try to steer away from such manner, while not ducking intelligent discussion.
Meantime, I’m quite pleased to know my views are positively regarded by mainstream Russians and some others who are interested in the same topics (among them being Russian history, foreign policy and sports, as well as the English language mass media coverage of former Communist bloc issues) as myself.
On the discussed matter, one can note (no names) seemingly well educated and well travelled individuals, whose views are very much open to second guessing.
Keep up the great work AK.
Before I get possibly pounced on, let me clarify that some of my views aren’t within the realm of how many Russians think. That said, I’ve been given respect in terms of my intentions. As one example, I think there’s a good analytical basis to second guess whether it was best for Russia to decide on recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia at this time. The main reasons don’t include the neocon/neolib preferred view that it encourages parts of Russia to breakaway.
I feel better about the situation with the knowledge that there’re relatively young folks out there, who display great intellect, while sharing some of my core views.
AK, from your brief clarification I think I understand – sorry to have even raised the issue, and I hope one day you have more of a choice. Actually, the first time I lived in Russia, I didn’t have a choice about it, although in the end I’m very glad I had the chance to do so. And (as I hope I’ve made clear in the past) I do find your work, especially with demographic data, to be impressive and useful, even if I don’t always agree with your conclusions.
Fedia, please tell me where I have “professed expertise.” I generally avoid using the word “expert” about myself, because 1) when it comes to Russia, I’m not one; 2) it is pompous and 3) too many self-proclaimed experts “(no names)” have cheapened the word.
If you had actually read my blog (I don’t care if you read it, so don’t bother if you don’t want to, but if you’re going to comment about something then at least read what you’re commenting on), you would know that I don’t live in Russia anymore. You might also realize that I do not attempt or purport to provide “global trends analysis” (whatever that is) and don’t generally do statistical analysis pieces (didn’t take enough math in college); I write and post (and sometimes translate into English) things – from a fairly wide variety of sources, again contra your comment – that are of interest to me and often on sufficiently obscure topics that they may be of interest to few others, and sometimes I write about my own experiences and/or post photos, etc. It is a totally different style of writing, much more personal and not really oriented toward any particular reader. At the end of the day, I write it for myself – it gives me a reason to keep following events in places that are of interest to me mainly for personal reasons.
The most bizarre thing about your comment is the suggestion that if I had really experienced Russia properly, I would hold the same views as the “Russian population as a whole.” Leaving aside the ridiculous idea that public opinion there – or anywhere – is monolithic (народ и партия едины, ага…), I wonder if you would agree with something along the following lines:
Someone who lives in America but does not share the views of the “American population as a whole” – or, to change the phrase a bit, the views of “patriotic Americans” – should not be taken seriously when commenting on American domestic affairs, because they are clearly living in their own little world and just don’t get it.
Absurd, right? Yet that is exactly what you seem to be suggesting – if I don’t agree with Russian public opinion, I must somehow be missing the boat. It’s really hard for me to believe you’re defending the proposition that an idea’s mass popularity equates to it’s somehow being a “correct” idea, but that seems to be exactly what you are saying. Wow.
The point is this. Of course I understand why many Russians hold the views they do about Putin, Medvedev, the “near abroad,” Russia’s current trajectory, etc. I understand the disillusionment with “the West” produced by the 1990s, the desire for one’s motherland to be prosperous, and all the rest. It is all quite understandable, I have friends who hold “mainstream Russian” views and sometimes we get into a bit of back-and-forth about it. But understanding why a large number of people hold certain views does not mean I have to share those views, does it?
Also, just in case you were suggesting that I, like so many expats in Russia (including some journalists, unfortunately), spent my time there in the “expat bubble,” I should point out that both times I lived in Russia (1984-87 and 2001-05), I lived in apartments downtown (not a дипдом or gated community), I socialized primarily with Russians, my school/work was conducted principally in Russian (a public school and an office where 80-90% of my colleagues were Russian), consumed state-run Russian media, and spoke Russian at least part of the time at home. I apologize for the laundry list – perhaps all of that just makes me bicultural and does not mean my views on this or that subject should carry any particular weight. I don’t force my views on people and don’t particularly care if what I write online has a wide readership, but I guess I take offense at your suggestion that I “live in [my] own little world” since that could not be further from the truth.
Anyway, apologies for such a lengthy comment (“it is so long only because I don’t have time to make it shorter”!), I guess I felt that some of Fedia’s comments were sufficiently outrageous that they deserved an extensive response.
Yes, it’s quite “cheap” (no names mentioned) to not address what a person has actually commented on. Instead, looking to second guess in other ways.
I’m quite pleased to deal with academics, journalists and others who don’t engage in such sleaze.
I also want to note the anonymous types (no one so far at this thread) who block views going against their own while posting bigoted crap along the lines of “I hate….” (a certain set of countries – usually two in particular). Then, there’re some (stress some) paper credential types who essentially hide in managed situations that serve to coverup their questionable views.
IMO, Fedia has made perfect sense.
Lyndon, I’m sorry to have sparked your outrage.
Your post implied that Anatoly is less credible because he doesn’t live in Russia, while you, who has lived in Russia, have superior knowledge (otherwise, why mention your experience?).
I pointed out that for the kind of analysis Anatoly writes, his country of residence is immaterial. Personal experience cannot in any way, shape, or form contribute to such analysis. You chose not to address any of this in your reply, so I take it you concede this point.
For fear of sparking further outrage on your part, I will refrain from responding to your defensive post. I think the main idea is clear: you need to concentrate on what is written, not who wrote it. The only exception to the rule might be if you have reason to doubt the writer’s honesty based on prior experience. Since no one here in their right mind has challenged Anatoly’s integrity, we can put the exception aside.
On that last point, Anatoly’s integrity seems to have been challenged with the statement about how he might delete comments that take issue with him.
Why the need for such a statement? His track record appears quite accepting of different views. This is in stark contrast to some who lob cheap shots, while blocking comments at their venues (this point doesn’t pertain to anyone who has so far posted at this thread).
It’s somewhat bogus to challenge someone’s honesty without a good basis for doing so – while being more readily acceptable of other sources, whose views can be legitimately second guessed.
It’s worth repeating that a direct response to the actual subject matter reflects a more earnest advocacy, over going off in a personal direction. Granted, that this point can be a fine line, given the “About Me” (AK) section here.
“Much of this time was spent in a bleak, post-industrial town in England’s North-West. Fortunately, it had Europe’s largest bus station so at least getting the hell out of there was easy after finishing high school.”
So it is very important to have bus station near by!
What a gripping blog, I have a background in economic history and international relations and most of what I’ve read so far from you has been spot on. No purpose in my pointing out things that I agree with you on though. I have one or two doubts on what you’ve written regarding the UK.
I was a bit surprised you felt Brits can’t “accept foreigners as fully British unless they utterly reject their cultural roots”. I would not have batted an eyelid if you’d said this about France, but slight surprised you say it about the UK. Could this opinion have derived from your specific experiences in a blighted, post industrial northern town? The reason I say this is that I found Manchester (a student city) quite free and accepting but tough towns like Preston and Burnley narrow and bigoted. Londoners hardly distinguish between Brits and “foreigners” at all; though that may be because they hardly think of themselves as British – and for that they receive much criticism from the rest of the country.
A point about Scotland. I agree that in a peak oil world Scotland has some advantages; such as population to land ratio. But remember Scotland is a nation with an economy heavily dependent on (1) financial services (2) exports of non-essential Scottish branded goods (3) tourism (4) the public sector. It is also has poor internal PO public transport and is not geographically well placed for trade with other countries. Add to that an unhealthy population. As you correctly point out the North Sea oil and gas is depleting fast and I see no way that Scotland would be in a position to divorce from the rest of Britain and nationalise this resource in the face of strong resistance and foot dragging while there was any serious supplies left – not least considering the likely opposition from the holders of capital and the usual Anglo-American oil interests (with the inevitable military and intelligence agencies not far behind).
Also would Northern Ireland receive such a “hearty embrace” from the Republic of Ireland? There is the problem of billions of pounds in subsidies that the north receives (directly and indirectly) from the UK and the over-whelming dominance of the north’s public sector. How could the Republic’s small economy digest that extra burden with, presumably, their own economy in decline? Strangely I think that other Brits would accept the loss of N. Ireland to the Republic without a murmur, putting it down to an historic inevitability. The UK media already report N. Ireland almost as if it’s a foreign country. Absurdly the other Brits (or do I mean English?) would probably be far more upset at the loss of the Falkland’s to Argentina; though if there is serious accessible oil around the Falkland’s/Malvinas that might not be so absurd after all.
Anyway, I hope you write that book, based on what I’ve read from you so far I’d happily read it.
Thanks for the comment, Jon. I only noticed it now hence the delay in replying.
You are spot on about my attitudes to Britain. As I wrote on the update at the bottom of “About Me”, – “From what I’ve heard, France is substantially worse”. However, since I haven’t lived there except as a tourist, I am in no position to make a true comparative judgment. Funnily enough, the “bleak, post-industrial town in England’s North-West” I wrote about is indeed Preston. And yes, I did find London very agreeable on the occasions we visited it.
Best, AK.