Introduction

Australia has seen a significant rise in the number of people self-identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander since the 1970s. While some of this growth is attributable to demographic change and reconnection by Stolen Generations descendants, a considerable portion emerges from those termed “New Identifiers” or race-shifters (Watt & Kowal, 2019). These individuals, often without longstanding community ties or cultural practice, assert Aboriginal identity later in life. Concurrently, the rise of sovereign citizen ideologies and conspiracy-driven doomsday prepping culture has created new platforms for the performance of alternative sovereignties.

These two phenomena—Indigenous identity appropriation and settler conspirituality—intersect through a shared logic of settler entitlement. They offer disaffected white Australians, particularly men, a narrative of resistance that simultaneously undermines Indigenous sovereignty and reframes colonisation as spiritual return or bureaucratic dissent (Day & Carlson, 2023). This article examines how conspiratorial identity politics, especially those found in doomsday prepping and sovereign citizen movements, perform a kind of symbolic recolonisation.

The Rise of New Identifiers and the Crisis of Authenticity

The growth in Aboriginal self-identification has outpaced demographic expectations, particularly in urban and southern regions. As Watt and Kowal (2019) note, this trend is shaped not only by genuine reconnection but also by opportunistic identity adoption enabled by Australia’s broad legal definition of Indigeneity. The Commonwealth definition requires descent, self-identification, and community recognition (Gardiner-Garden, 2002), yet the third criterion is often weakened in bureaucratic practice (Nakata, 2013).

Many “New Identifiers” bypass community-based recognition and instead rely on genetic testing, distant ancestry, or cultural symbolism. Carlson (2016) and Harris et al. (2013) argue that this resurgence of authenticity politics echoes colonial regimes that sought to classify, contain, and control Aboriginal people through racial typologies. By invoking essentialist notions of blood or phenotype, identity fraudsters and their defenders replicate the same logics used to erase Aboriginality.

Paradies (2006) critiques this essentialism, describing how pan-Aboriginal political solidarity has at times been co-opted by state and settler agendas that re-inscribe authenticity through cultural alterity and moral marginality. The pressure to appear or perform “Aboriginal” in a specific, recognisable way reinforces stereotypes, distorts community dynamics, and burdens light-skinned or urban Aboriginal people with constant suspicion or scrutiny (Bennett, 2019).

DIY DNA and the Re-Biologisation of Indigeneity

Direct-to-consumer genetic ancestry tests have further complicated the politics of identity. As Watt and Kowal (2019) argue, genetic testing offers a seductive promise of objective truth about heritage, yet it cannot verify cultural belonging or community membership. The scientific limitations of autosomal testing—particularly in Australia, where reference populations are limited—render such tests inconclusive for Indigenous identity.

Nonetheless, the uptake of DIY DNA tests has empowered individuals to claim Aboriginality based on minor or unverifiable genetic markers. This practice shifts identity verification away from relational, communal, and cultural processes toward consumerist, individualist, and biomedical paradigms (Watt & Kowal, 2019). The implications are profound: it elevates a racialised view of Indigeneity while silencing lived cultural experience and community authority.

Settler Conspirituality, Sovereign Citizens, and the Fantasy of Freedom

As Day and Carlson (2023) explore, settler conspirituality is the fusion of New Age spiritualism with far-right conspiracism. In Australia, this manifests in anti-vaccine activism, QAnon-adjacent beliefs, and sovereign citizen ideologies. These movements reject government authority, embrace pseudolegal tactics, and appropriate Indigenous concepts such as sovereignty and connection to Country.

Through conspiritualist narratives, settler Australians frame themselves as “natural beings” with “original law,” drawing on misappropriated Aboriginal language and ritual while denying the political legitimacy of actual Indigenous nations. At the Muckadda Camp, for example, self-declared “Original Sovereigns” attempted to co-opt the Aboriginal Tent Embassy while espousing white supremacist and conspiratorial views (Day & Carlson, 2023).

Such performances are deeply racialised. They depend on the erasure of Indigenous sovereignty in order to claim it. This mirrors historical settler tactics of “playing Indian,” as described by Deloria (1998), where settlers assert indigeneity to symbolically distance themselves from the colonial state while reinforcing settler supremacy.

The Role of Media, Disinformation, and Far-Right Networks

The spread of conspiratorial identity claims is facilitated by online networks, commercial media, and fringe influencers. Walker (2023) documents how the Atlas Network and affiliated organisations such as Advance Australia used disinformation campaigns to undermine the Voice to Parliament referendum. These campaigns exploited fears about racial division, loss of rights, and foreign interference, echoing sovereign citizen and prepper anxieties.

Social media platforms further entrench these views by algorithmically amplifying sensationalist and emotive content. The result is an epistemic crisis in which Indigenous knowledge, legal recognition, and community governance are displaced by viral narratives of collapse, purity, and individual rights (Kauk et al., 2021).

Cultural and Legal Consequences of Identity Fraud

The consequences of these identity performances are far from symbolic. Individuals who falsely claim Aboriginality have accessed scholarships, grants, awards, land consultation rights, and positions of influence. In doing so, they displace legitimate Aboriginal voices and divert resources from communities experiencing structural disadvantage (Carlson, 2016; Hughes, 1998).

This recalls the Bolt v Eatock (2011) case, in which a columnist’s attack on fair-skinned Aboriginal people revealed the persistence of racialised gatekeeping and the fragility of Indigenous identity in public discourse (Savage, 2011). Bolt’s scepticism mirrored the settler fantasy that Aboriginality must be visible, quantifiable, and morally legible to white audiences.

Reclaiming Authority: Indigenous Frameworks for Identity and Belonging

Amid these pressures, Indigenous scholars and communities have developed nuanced frameworks for identity that resist both state-defined essentialism and opportunistic self-assertion. These frameworks emphasise relationality, lived cultural practice, community recognition, and intergenerational responsibility (Nakata, 2013; Bennett, 2019; Paradies, 2006).

Carlson and Day (2023) advocate for the strengthening of Aboriginal-led governance over identity, including localised registers, cultural verification panels, and ethical protocols for academic, legal, and bureaucratic engagement. These efforts are crucial not only to defend against fraud, but to re-centre Indigenous sovereignty in conversations about belonging.

Conclusion

The appropriation of Aboriginal identity through DNA testing, conspirituality, and settler legal fictions represents a contemporary recolonisation of Indigenous cultural space. These practices obscure the historical and ongoing realities of colonisation, replacing them with fantasies of white victimhood, spiritual rebirth, and bureaucratic resistance.

To counter this, Indigenous-led recognition systems, cultural protocols, and anti-fraud policy frameworks must be strengthened. Doing so affirms that Aboriginality is not a claim to be made in isolation, but a relationship to be honoured through accountability, reciprocity, and truth-telling.

References
Bennett, B. (2019). Developing Aboriginal identity as a light-skinned person. In B. Bennett & S. Green (Eds.), Our voices: Aboriginal social work (pp. 190–193). Bloomsbury.

Carlson, B. (2016). The politics of identity: Who counts as Aboriginal today? Aboriginal Studies Press.

Day, M., & Carlson, B. (2023). So-called sovereign settlers: Settler conspirituality and nativism in the Australian anti-vax movement. Humanities, 12(112), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/h12050112

Deloria, P. J. (1998). Playing Indian. Yale University Press.

Gardiner-Garden, J. (2002). Defining Aboriginality in Australia. Parliamentary Library Research Paper Series, 10, 1–29.

Harris, M., Carlson, B., & Poata-Smith, E. (2013). Indigenous identities and the politics of authenticity. In M. Harris, M. Nakata, & B. Carlson (Eds.), The politics of identity: Emerging indigeneity (pp. 1–9). UTS E-Press.

Hughes, M. A. (1998). The complexity of Aboriginal identity: Mudrooroo and Sally Morgan. Westerly, 43(3), 21–29.

Nakata, M. (2013). Identity politics: Who can count as Indigenous? In M. Harris, M. Nakata, & B. Carlson (Eds.), The politics of identity (pp. 125–130). UTS E-Press.

Paradies, Y. (2006). Beyond black and white: Essentialism, hybridity and Indigeneity. Journal of Sociology, 42(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783306069993

Savage, E. (2011, April 8). Andrew Bolt and free speech. Eureka Street. https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/andrew-bolt-and-free-speech

Walker, J. (2023). Silencing the Voice: The fossil-fuelled Atlas Network’s campaign against constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australia. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, 15(2), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v15.i2.8813

Watt, E., & Kowal, E. (2019). What’s at stake? Determining Indigeneity in the era of DIY DNA. New Genetics and Society, 38(4), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2018.1559726