Vladimir Avdeyev: Race Scientist

Review by Jürgen Graf, fufor’s unregelmässige news, November 30, 2007



(Rasologia. Biblioteka Rasovoy Mysli)

By Vladimir Avdeyev

Moscow, 2007

665 pp., $49.50

Lulu Marketplace

Where in the world is it nowadays conceivable that a book about the

inherent differences between the human races, which pays tribute to the

racial theorists of the Third Reich and explicitly claims that all races

are not equal, is not only openly sold in the bookstores but even

becomes a bestseller? And where in the world is it possible that such a

book is favorably reviewed by renowned scholars and provided with two

introductions, one written by a member of parliament and the other one

by a prominent representative of a liberal organization?

In Germany, Austria or France? Unthinkable! In these countries such a

book would almost certainly be banned; its author would be put on trial

for “racial discrimination” or “instigation of the populace”; any

member of parliament who would have the audacity of endorsing its

contents by writing an introduction would immediately be castigated as a

“racist bigot” by the media and would have to relinquish his seat in

parliament within days.

In the Anglo-Saxon world? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. It is

quite true that the English-speaking countries enjoy much greater

freedom of thought and speech than the German-speaking ones or France.

In the USA, the First Amendment to the Constitution would certainly

protect the author of such a book from legal persecution; in Britain or

Canada, there are laws against “racism”, but the author of a scholarly

work about race would hardly be prosecuted on the basis of these laws.

On the other hand, the media would either ignore or angrily denounce his

book without discussing his arguments, and he would risk social

ostracism. This is exactly what happened in the United States to Arthur

Jensen and Hans Eysenck, two serious scientists who had dared to

challenge the dogma of racial equality. They were pilloried as “racists”

and “haters” and harassed by left-wing fanatics for whom rational

arguments did not count. The late biologist Glade Whitney became the

victim of a tremendous smear campaign after writing an introduction to

David Duke’s My Awakening. Only a handful of scholars or politicians

will muster the courage to incur the wrath of the watchdogs of

“political correctness”.

In Russia? Yes, in Russia all this is perfectly possibly. The proof

is Vladimir Avdeyev’s books Rasologia, the second edition of which came

out in late 2007 in Moscow. Vladimir Borisovich Avdeyev was born in

1962, After acquiring a university degree in Economics, he served in the

Soviet Air Force where he was promoted to the rank of First Lieutenant.

Since 1993, he has been a member of the Russian Writers’ Association;

in 1991, he founded the journal Atenei together with his

comrades-in-arms Anatoli Ivanov and Pavel Tulayev. Since 1999, V.

Avdeyev has edited a series of books under the title “Biblioteka Rasovoy

Mysli” (The Library of Racial Thought), and in 2005, the first edition

of his Rasologia appeared. This book was highly successful, and already

two years later its author was able to publish an improved and enlarged

second edition. The two introductions were written by Andrey Savelev, a

delegate of the Russian Duma {parliament) and close personal friend of

Avdeyev, and by Valeri Solovei, a historian and member of the

ultra-liberal Gorbachev Foundation, who aptly summarizes the book as


“Humanity is entering a new epoch. The world that was shaped by the

Enlightenment and Modernity using melodious words such as ‘democracy’,

‘equality’, ‘progress’ and ‘human rights’ is becoming part of a past

that will never return. Together with this world, the scientific

concepts and the intellectual ballast which belonged to it are doomed

too. All this will be replaced by a world based on blood and soil,

strength and hierarchy, which will need a new theory and new concepts.”

Avdeyev’s book is subdivided into eight chapters: 1) Racial Science

and Anthropology: What are the differences? 2) The Fair Race:

Historiography and Anthropology. 3) The Biological Foundation of the

Northern Conception of the World. 4) Thoughts about Racial Prejudices.

5) A New Paradigm in Racial Science. 6) The Anti-Racial Myth of the

“Melting Pot”. 7) Racial-ideological Neurology, and finally, the

striking chapter 8, A Racial Theory of Time. The book contains a large

number of excellent photographs and illustrations.

For me as a non-specialist, who only had a very general knowledge of

the question, Avdeyev’s history of racial thought was particularly

fascinating. I had erroneously taken it for granted that almost all

racial theorists had been German and that the Frenchman Arthur de

Gobineau (Essay on the Inequality of the Races, 1855) and the Englishman

Houston Stewart Chamberlain (Foundations of the Nineteenth Century,

1899) were exceptions. Thanks to Avdeyev, who has carefully studied the

writings of all the important racial theorists, I learned I was wrong:

the subject of race has been dealt with by numerous and illustrious

French scholars, and the study of race flourished in Russia before 1917.

Who would have guessed that the term “Nordic race” was not coined by a

German, but by a Russian, Joseph Denniker (1852-1918)?

Being a Russian nationalist (nota bene, he is not a Russian

chauvinist), Avdeyev objectively and impartially presents the works of

all major racial theorists regardless of their countries of origin. He

calls himself a “grateful student” of the “great theorists of race” to

whom he dedicates his book. In my opinion, Avdeyev can best be

characterized as a representative of “classical racial thought.”

Although a large part of the book summarizes and discusses the theories

of his predecessors, it also contains many of his original thoughts.

This is especially true of the fascinating final chapter, “A Racial

Theory of Time.”

The amount of solid information this book provides both to the

specialist and to the interested layman is awesome–and it will force the

reader to jettison many a cherished yet erroneous belief.

I will confine myself to two errors Avdeyev clears up: Since the

Soviet Union officially professed the strictly egalitarian doctrine of

Marxism, we are naturally inclined to think that the study of racial

differences was taboo under Soviet rule. But as Avdeyev shows, this is

an error: During the Soviet period, scientific anthropology, which gave

due credit to racial differences, was not only not oppressed, but even


Second example: As National Socialist Germany saw in Bolshevist

Russia its arch-enemy, one might presume that in the Third Reich

scientists were strictly forbidden to quote Soviet sources. As a matter

of fact, one of the leading German racial theorists, Fritz Lenz, quoted

no fewer than 34 works of Soviet scientists in his seminal study

“Menschliche Erblichkeitslehre” [“A Theory of Human Heredity”], which he

wrote in 1932. This fact did not prevent Lenz from becoming highly

respected after Hitler’s assumption of power.

Some people may argue that a book such as Avdeyev’s has no practical

value, and they may ask “what good does it do?” My answer to this

objection is the following:

Firstly, true science enriches our knowledge, and knowledge is always

valuable, regardless of whether it offers material advantages or not.

When an ornithologist discovers a truly new kind of bird, this will be

reported by the major media around the world, although this discovery

does not benefit us materially. And if it is useful to add to our

knowledge of birds, it is undoubtedly even more useful to increase our

knowledge of man–of ourselves.

But there is more. A correct understanding of race and racial

differences is of tremendous importance because we thereby recognize

certain extremely grave errors Western society has committed, and this

understanding equips us to remedy them. The fallacious doctrine of

racial equality, which has been promoted for decades by the followers of

Franz Boas, has caused pernicious political consequences. It has made

possible the catastrophe of forced racial integration in the USA, which

has done immeasurable harm to both the white and the black populations,

and it has paved the way for massive third-world immigration into

Europe, North America and Australia. What is happening before our eyes

in France is the handwriting on the wall. Race does matter, whether or

not some people want us this.

With his book, which is the fruit of many years of hard study,

Vladimir Avdeyev has rendered to science, and to us all a grand service.

His work deserves to be translated from Russian into English and into

all the other major Western European languages.

Vladimir Avdeyev can be reached at [email protected]


Now available from Lulu Marketplace.

A review of:


By Vladimir Avdeyev

Moscow : Biblioteka Rasovoy Mysli. 2007, 2nd edition, 665 pp., $49.50.

Translation by Patrick Cloutier

Foreword by Kevin MacDonald

Like it or not, Raciology is a book that illustrates how free speech about Galtonian topics has sunk in the West–and resurfaced in Moscow (where Communism had formerly banned scientific racism). In the West of the past fifteen years, only mail-order and vanity publishers would deliver the thoughts and evidence of academic race realists Art Jensen, Phil Rushton, Richard Lynn, Glayde Whitney, Helmuth Nyborg and myself to the Western public. In leading British universities, Geoffrey Sampson, Satoshi Kanazawa, Armand Leroi, Frank Ellis and David Coleman were all silenced by administrators when they talked of race; and I was sacked. By contrast, in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, with its serious concern with ethnic (often Muslim) problems and the disruptive advance of Western ‘liberal interventionism’ and multicultural illusionism in ex-Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, the 46-year-old Vladimir Borisovich Avdeyev, an engineer and Soviet Army officer by origin, later a journalist, is allowed not only to edit the prestigious Athenaeum Magazine but to have a publisher for his thoroughgoing racial analysis of the world’s problems, combining lively (if traditional) ideas with scholarly detail and vivid illustrations (not disdaining the splendidly buttocked ‘Hottentot Venus’ who was displayed in Paris a century ago). Avdeyev has mastered the history of Western racial thought from the Enlightenment days of Immanuel Kant and David Hume to the twentieth century and provided an unparalleled summary. Only John Baker’s Race (1967, Oxford University Press–but withdrawn after Baker’s death) would hold a candle to Avdeyev’s magisterial effort.

Essentially, Avdeyev presents the Nordic peoples (including thereby the Slavs and Caucasoid Russians) as the racial group responsible for the bulk of culture, science and lawful governance in the world. He writes (p. 156): “In the very heart of Europe–at the time of the formation of the first states, the creation of literacy, religion, culture, technology and the bases of civilisation and jurisprudence–there was no mention of Mongols, Negroes, and cross-breeds. All the epic creation belonged entirely to the White man of pure race–to his will, genes, and far-sightedness.” (The term “Nordic race” was apparently not coined by a German or by the mighty William McDougall (of the universities of Cambridge, London, Oxford and Harvard), but by the French-parented but Russian-born Joseph Deniker (1852-1918). And, contrary to communist propaganda, Hitler apparently took a dim view only of Bolsheviks, not of East Europeans in general: “The Third Reich did not fight with Slavism, but with threat of bolshevism to the fundamentals of European civilisation . . . It was the Bolsheviks, such as Mehlis and open racists like Ilya Ehrenburg that those in Himmler’s department described as “Untermenschen” in an exceedingly anthropological sense of the word” (p.123).) In particular, Avdeyev rehearses the Nordics’ economic and psychometric achievements and provides physical measurements (including some of his own) which he takes to attest Nordic superiority–for Blacks, in particular, he finds to be distinguished by strength and physicality rather than by cranial development. In all this, Avdeyev is well in line with the modern London School and it is good to think that Russian scholars and students will be led by Raciology to join the great debate that Western politicians, publishers and university authorities have done their best to suppress.

It is true that Avdeyev will discompose Western race realists almost as much as Western anti-racists. He takes a Nazistic line about the Jews, reckoning them uncultured ‘nomads’ rather than recognizing (1) their having been beaten into the wilderness by Rome, (2) their high IQs, and (3) their ten-fold over-representation among Nobel prizewinners (compared to other Americans). Strangely, he does not especially want to criticize the Jewish elite for the manufacture of multiculturalism and PeeCee in the West (not in Israel, of course, where strict race realism rules) and its weird importation to the West, qua blessed ‘minorities’ which all should love, of millions of Jewry’s most deadly Muslim enemies. He is equally dismissive of the Chinese–verily Johnsonian in his assertion of White superiority, even thinking some of the higher Chinese (as also Egyptian) cultural attainments attributable to stray Caucasoid genes, and not admitting the onward march of modern China to make America its debtor. Avdeyev equally declines to follow modern Western ‘out of Africa’ thinking about evolution, preferring to believe that the main human races descended quite separately from different types of ape. (He backs this up with reasoning involving the proneness of different races to different diseases and tolerance to different kinds of food, smell/taste [as identified in cannibals].) He has a special line of his own in believing that the West, in its right-handedness and left-to-right script, is thus importantly distinguished from Muslims, Jews, Egyptians, homosexuals and the Chinese–not apparently recalling that Africans are both conspicuously more right-handed and less homosexual than Europeans. He also wants to derive significance from Blacks’ tendencies to squat and from alleged Asian proneness to melancholy. And he disdains Western convention in deploring ‘mixed marriages’–believing such unions to yield unhealthy and otherwise degenerate children (with large genetic ‘mongol stains’ on their bottoms, at least in Brazil and Ecuador). (“The propaganda of free love is of no satisfaction, since, in the long run, it destroys races. Any search for sensory-biological diversity is fraught with evolutionary irresponsibility”– p.265. What Avdeyev makes of the half-caste Tiger Woods, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Naomi Campbell is not recorded….) Still more problematic, Avdeyev’s system of referencing is non-Western, making it hard to follow up many of his mentions of the works of the scholars and medics of Europe’s past who did so much to identify the racial differences that had been strangely ignored by Ancient Greece, Rome and Christianity. And, though Avdeyev’s heart is surely in the right place about plucky Serbia, he doesn’t admit that 25% of the Russian Army is now Muslim and thus multicultural and incapable of deployment into Kosovo.

Nevertheless, Avdeyev’s thoughts and scholarship fully deserve discussion and development rather than the suppression which they would promptly receive if he attempted to publish in the West. Above all, Avdeyev makes the strong case that ‘race is everything: literature, science, art–in a word, civilization–depend on it,’ as Edinburgh University’s top anatomist Robert Knox explained in 1850. And Avdeyev is also properly agitated not so much about Negroes (among whom he lived for a while, studying their varied tastes in cannibalism–one sub-section, 4-pages long, is called “Racial smells and passions of cannibals”) as against Whites who betray their own race and science (for Darwin’s great book was called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), wear dreadlocks or flip-flops, listen to heavily rhythmic music, shake or otherwise draw attention to their genitals while dancing and fail to appreciate Russia’s eugenic possibilities of breeding from the likes of Red Army sex symbol Dana Borisova (e.g. http://www.rususa.com/photo/gallery . . . .14-imageid-359). One only hopes his next work might concentrate–as the London School has done–more on intelligence and IQ than on features of less immediate relevance to explaining the human races’ different levels of cultural advance.


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Ref. post 16.

    Your comments are very useful, but I think the term “fascism” needs to be clearly understood (or avoided) in contemporary discourse. The “fascism” of Moseley and Mussolini differs markedly from some salient characteristics of an expansionist militarism like that of Hitler’s Germany. And nationalism ( a true sense of the basic “us/them” dichotomy of life’s struggle ) has to be transposed to the global economy and communication networks of our age. Moseley’s thought seems especially deserving of far more regard and dialogue that it seems to get

  • Anonymous

    15 — John Engelman wrote at 12:48 PM on March 31:

    “In 2007, Chinese geneticists discovered vast differences in the genetic makeup of Africans, Asians and Caucasians…”


    One thing I found amusing about that link was the p.c. hack who wrote the article hardly touched upon the subject matter, instead giving himself over to an orgy of exultation of everything Chinese.

    By the way, the Chinese are hardly the first to discover the genetic basis of human races. The British and Americans are also ahead of the Chinese in researching genes involved in IQ. This is why I don’t get my science and history from the lamestream media. Talking heads and media hacks know about as much of science and history as they do about the financial markets…nothing!


    From the article:

    “The continent’s rich genetic diversity means that some drugs designed to treat Europeans do not work well in Africans. And genome-wide association studies designed to trace the genetic underpinnings of disease are difficult to execute in Africa because the arrays used to detect genetic variation were designed using mostly European sequences.”



  • Sunhunter61

    The second review gives an impression of a person who cannot stand the very idea of the book, but will allow it on politically correct ‘intellectual openness’. It clearly hurts, though…