Nathan Cofnas v. the State Religion

The modern era is said to value rationality and reason above all else. We are said to be free from superstition and fantasy. However, our world is not ruled by reason, but by a theology that worships racial equality.

Those who challenge our state religion are punished, and the more effective the challenge, the harsher the punishment. It is therefore no surprise that after Dr. Nathan Cofnas broke the Jason Arday story, not one academic institution thanked him for exposing a blatant fraud. Instead, his employer, Ghent University, suspended him.

After Arday’s suicide, many accused Mr. Cofnas of causing his death. Some even called for him to be held legally liable for this “digital lynching.” Arday’s fraud wasn’t the problem; it was Mr. Cofnas’ gall to have noticed it. Although it appears that Mr. Cofnas will be reinstated at Ghent University, his public reputation is probably damaged. He is a heretic because he violated the state religion with facts that are practically indisputable.

Dr. Nathan Cofnas

His facts have been disturbing people for some time. In 2024, during an interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC News, Mr. Ferrari quoted Mr. Cofnas back to him: “In a meritocracy, Harvard would be recruiting from the very best students, which means the number of black professors would approach zero percent. Blacks would disappear from all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment.” Mr. Ferrari, almost too astonished to speak after reading the statement, eventually managed to ask, “But how can you say that?”

Mr. Cofnas tried to cite Harvard’s own data, but Mr. Ferrari was quick to dismiss him. Data didn’t matter because Mr. Ferrari was really asking Mr. Cofnas how he could dare to say such a thing. Incredulity is a familiar response. No matter what evidence we offer, people appear unwilling to listen.

Race-realists are often bewildered by the obstinacy they meet, but this is not pure stubbornness. There is a fundamental reason elites and the obedient public refuse to look at our facts. Elite rejection of Mr. Cofnas’ race-realist claims has nothing to do with the strength of the data. Nor are the claims badly presented or communicated. James Watson did not have his life, career, and reputation destroyed because he presented sloppy work. Nor did Charles Murray’s data contradict the prevailing research. If they had published heterodox findings on ladybugs, no one would have objected. No, these two men, along with Mr. Cofnas and so many others, have been crucified in the press because their conclusions about the genetic contribution to race differences in intelligence undermine the state religion.

Many race-realists have long believed that we are simply battling an alternative hypothesis. We have convinced ourselves that our opponents simply haven’t seen the right evidence. This is why we compile all the data we can and point to it with a vigor like that of Isaac Newton after discovering gravity. But this approach fails because we are really fighting an alternative morality.

Humans do not evaluate facts through a true-false lens, but through their moral framework. This is why, when the truth is told about something like race, the whistleblower is punished while the progressive orthodoxy is praised. Claims about reality are valued according to the morality of the investigator rather than the validity of the assertion.

Our state theology views every fact that contradicts it as suspect if not evil, just as it sees any assertion in its defense as noble. The theology is the problem, not the facts. As right-wing commentator Dave Greene noted in his brilliant discussion with Mr. Cofnas, discrediting those assertions does nothing. What we must discredit is the morality that has led our opponents to their thesis of equality.

Nathan Cofnas, along with many other race-realists, has had no real success in changing the institutions’ perspective because he is appealing to data in what is a moral disagreement. And no amount of data can bring people out of a religious fervor. Reality can’t even do that; there are still liberals in South Africa.

To succeed, we must displace liberal theocracy, and for this, we have two options. The quickest approach would be to use political power to take control of the institutions and repurpose them by supplanting the guiding theology. Donald Trump appears unwilling to use power this way.

If the state won’t take action, we will have to create a new class of counter-elites, and silent infiltration of existing institutions is not enough. The institutions’ theological framework is too hostile and antithetical. We are not trying to nudge a Catholic into Orthodoxy. We are looking to invert the state religion, and this cannot be done through quiet subversion alone. We have to challenge the existing morality of the institutions publicly by articulating why their morality of racial equality is wrong and should be done away with.

However, an assault on the god of liberalism won’t be enough. We need to sell a new theology — one not based on equality. While the general public doesn’t need to be convinced of our morality, potential allies and counter-elites do. We have to attract and convert a faction that can compete with the current hegemony. We have an advantage here, because our state church has excommunicated many of the most competent and talented young men in our society. They’re looking for a new morality.

Harvard began as a Christian seminary. Its theology has been replaced before; it can be replaced again. But our target remains the theology because our facts cannot even be heard until racial equality is no longer holy.