Introduction: Blak Knowing, Simulation, and the Crisis of Credibility

In contemporary Australia, the boundaries between authentic Aboriginal epistemology and settler simulation are increasingly contested. By “settler simulation,” we refer to the performative appropriation of Aboriginal identity, symbolism, and ceremony by non-Indigenous individuals or groups, often without community recognition, genealogical connection, or cultural authority. These simulations mimic cultural legitimacy while displacing the sovereign custodians of that knowledge. Spiritual mimicry, impostor Indigeneity, and white performativity are no longer fringe phenomena but central features of settler cultural production. A growing network of pseudolegal, cultic, and conspiratorial movements including the so-called “GuriNgai” collective, Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA), My Place, and various conspiratorial offshoots have weaponized Indigenous Identity Appropriation and Fraud through faux- ceremony, and cultural language to project a counterfeit legitimacy (Cooke, 2025a; Moreton-Robinson, 2015). These networks, deeply embedded in settler magical thinking and conspirituality, represent a coordinated symbolic attack on Indigenous sovereignty.

Conspirituality, a term coined to describe the convergence of New Age spirituality and conspiracy theory, provides the epistemic scaffolding for many of these impostures. It fuses individualized mystical belief with paranoid narratives of control, allowing settler actors to bypass verification, reject institutional authority, and claim access to hidden or sacred truths. This framework underpins the broader epistemological conflict between relational, sovereign Blak Knowing and the affective mimicry of settler magical thinking, governance, and epistemic authority.

We explore how settler simulations of Aboriginality, fueled by New Age spirituality, far-right ideology, pseudolaw, and ecological romanticism, enact structural violence against Aboriginal peoples and cultures. These impostures displace sovereign Aboriginal knowledge with affective performance and emotional resonance, exploiting settler institutions’ discomfort with verification. What emerges is an epistemic crisis: one in which settler fantasy substitutes for truth, and simulation eclipses cultural continuity. This work affirms the need for strong epistemic boundaries, robust verification protocols, and unwavering institutional accountability.

---

Chapter 1: Simulation as Sovereignty Theft

The term “simulation” captures a deeper violence than mere appropriation. It signals the substitution of Indigenous presence with settler performance; a copy without kinship, lineage, or Law. The self-proclaimed “GuriNgai” identity is not a continuation of ancestral authority but a symbolic construct rooted in colonial ethnography and settler desire (Attenbrow et al., 2015; Cooke, 2025b). Their rhetoric of belonging draws on spiritualized language, pseudohistorical claims, and affective gestures that mimic Indigeneity without consent or accountability. The result is a politics of replacement: a settler performance that erases Aboriginal presence while claiming to honor it.

This mimicry is not neutral; it has real-world consequences. Institutions, councils, and media platforms, often lacking cultural literacy and faced with competing truth claims, frequently amplify the loudest voices rather than the most legitimate ones. The outcome is institutional complicity in a settler simulation that erodes Aboriginal authority. The so-called GuriNgai group, with no genealogical ties or recognition by local Aboriginal people, community, or organisations such as Local Aboriginal Land Councils, is treated as a “community representative” in development consultations, heritage disputes, and planning hearings (Cooke, 2025c). Such inclusion does not advance reconciliation—it undermines it by displacing those who carry real responsibilities to Country.

Simulation thrives in the vacuum created by settler ignorance and institutional ambiguity. A striking example occurred in 2023 when a local council on the Central Coast recognized the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai group as a legitimate stakeholder in a development consultation, despite opposition from recognized Aboriginal Land Councils. This recognition was based not on lineage or community authority, but on the group’s affective use of cultural symbolism and language. The institutional failure to verify identity claims created space for performance to replace protocol, allowing settler simulation to occupy decision-making ground meant for sovereign custodians. Its primary vehicle is not evidence but affect: performance becomes a proxy for legitimacy, and aesthetic resonance becomes mistaken for cultural truth. From ochre-painted activists and didgeridoo ceremonies to self-declared “spiritual custodians” (see Cooke, 2025a; Cooke, 2025c), the settler simulation draws its power not from community but from spectacle. It is theatrical sovereignty without lineage, and sacredness without Law.

At the center of this crisis is the epistemological distinction between Blak Knowing and settler magical thinking. The former is collective, custodial, and accountable. The latter is individualistic, intuitive, and narcissistic. Blak Knowing is not self-declared; it is inherited, taught, and verified through kinship, community, and Country (Watson, 2014; Martin, 2003). Settler magical thinking, by contrast, elevates personal feeling over relational authority and treats Aboriginality as a symbolic resource to be mined rather than a sovereign identity to be respected.

These impostures do not exist in isolation; they are sustained by media complicity, bureaucratic inaction, and settler guilt. In one example, Jake Cassar’s nature walks, while presented as environmental activism, function as charismatic performances that reproduce colonial relationships with land, cloaked in the language of ‘custodianship’ and ‘nature connection’(Cooke, 2025d). In another, GuriNgai affiliates use the language of sacredness to oppose Aboriginal-led housing projects, reframing their obstructionism as cultural protection.

In both cases the simulation becomes substitution: the settler does not stand alongside Aboriginal authority but in place of it.

To resist this, we must enforce boundaries. These include institutional protocols for verifying Aboriginal identity through genealogical evidence and community recognition, mandatory consultation with legally recognized Aboriginal organizations in development and heritage matters, and clear rejection of self-appointed representatives who lack cultural authority. Restoring boundaries also requires public education on the difference between cultural performance and legitimate custodianship. Without these safeguards, institutions risk becoming platforms for imposture rather than allies in truth-telling and sovereignty. Blak epistemology is not available for settler interpretation. It lives in protocols, kinship, and Country. Its truth is not a feeling; it is a lineage. And when that truth is replaced by spectacle, what is lost is not only knowledge, but sovereignty itself.

The chapters that follow will trace how this simulation operates across spiritual, legal, ecological, and cultural domains, revealing a settler ecosystem of imposture that must be named, refused, and dismantled.

---

Chapter 2: The Architecture of Conspirituality: Cultic Structure and Settler Desire

At the heart of the settler simulation lies a deeper scaffolding: a belief system where conspiracy theory merges with spiritual yearning. This architecture of “conspirituality“—a term used to describe the fusion of New Age spirituality and conspiratorial thinking; provides the ideological basis for many settler impostures in contemporary Australia (Cooke, 2025e; Halafoff et al., 2022). Conspirituality blends anti-institutional paranoia with mystical entitlement, creating an affective belief system that is resistant to external verification and aligned with settler desires for sacred legitimacy.

The GuriNgai imposture, the Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA), and affiliated movements such as My Place and Community Voice Australia do not operate independently. They form a networked spiritual-political ecosystem animated by charismatic figures, intuitive truth claims, and mimetic performances of Indigeneity. These movements exploit the symbolic authority of Aboriginal culture, ceremony, language, art, and Law, while remaining structurally detached from the relational responsibilities and governance protocols that define legitimate custodianship.

Conspirituality is both an ideology and an infrastructure. It offers participants access to hidden knowledge, while reinforcing the notion that institutional authority, be it government, scientific, or Aboriginal, is corrupt or illegitimate. In this imaginary, epistemic legitimacy is grounded in emotional resonance, personal trauma narratives, and mystical revelation rather than genealogical continuity or community recognition. This affective structure is what Crabtree et al. (2020) describe as “cultic preference falsification“: the socially enforced agreement to publicly support claims that many privately doubt, out of fear of reputational harm or ostracization.

Charismatic leaders are central to this structure. Jake Cassar, for example, functions not only as a faux-environmental campaigner but as a ‘mentor’, claiming intuitive connection to Country and ancestral secrets. This authority is not earned through relational accountability or ceremonial initiation but declared through affective storytelling and spiritual branding. This mirrors broader patterns of charismatic fraud identified in contemporary cult studies (Anthony & Robbins, 2004; Renner et al., 2023).

These dynamics are further entrenched through pseudolaw. Settler actors deploy non-existent legal instruments such as common law trusts or natural law decrees, framed in quasi-spiritual terms to claim jurisdiction over land, people, and institutions. These acts of pseudolegal theatre often co-opt Aboriginal iconography, using “tribunal rulings” and “lawful notices” to assert non-existent authority.

This fusion of spirituality, conspiracy, and pseudolaw creates an echo chamber where identity is performative, all knowledge is intuitive, and resistance to scrutiny is framed as sacred defense. Emotional resonance is elevated above truth; performative allyship eclipses relational ethics.

The broader consequence is a form of settler reoccupation: a return to colonial dominance dressed in the garb of ecological concern, spiritual sensitivity, and cultural repair. Institutions, in their desire to be inclusive or politically neutral, often become complicit in this theatre; platforming unverified voices, funding performative initiatives, or including impostor representatives in consultative processes.

To dismantle the architecture of conspirituality, we must expose its scaffolding. This includes tracing the social media networks, charismatic economies, and pseudolegal tactics that sustain it. It also requires institutions to develop cultural protocols that prioritize verification, support sovereign Aboriginal governance structures, and resist the affective pull of settler simulation.

The next chapter will turn to the psychology of magical thinking and explore how affective narratives, spiritual bypassing, and crisis-driven identity formation fuel the rise of settler simulation in contemporary Australia.

---

Chapter 3: Settler Magical Thinking and the Crisis of Meaning

Settler magical thinking refers to the affective, non-relational, and often ahistorical belief systems through which non-Indigenous Australians claim epistemic or spiritual access to Aboriginality without protocol, lineage, or permission. Unlike Blak Knowing which is sovereign, accountable, and grounded in kinship, Law, and Country, settler magical thinking is intuitive, aesthetic, and detached. It arises not from cultural continuity, but from a crisis: a collapse in settler identity, institutional trust, and spiritual coherence.

This chapter argues that settler magical thinking functions as both an epistemic coping mechanism and a political strategy in postcolonial Australia; a simulacrum of belonging constructed from affect, fantasy, and institutional complicity. It is seductive precisely because it feels true, even when it is not. In times of social dislocation, political instability, and cultural fragmentation, settlers reach for sacredness, but do so in ways that overwrite rather than uphold Aboriginal sovereignty.

3.1 The Psychology of Settler Crisis: Meaning, Displacement, and Desire

White Australians can find themselves at times as settlers without ceremony. They live on stolen land while lacking relational ability/permission to belong to it. Magical thinking fills the epistemic vacuum left by this historical and spiritual dislocation. It emerges as both psychological compensation and symbolic conquest; a way to inhabit sacred space without the obligations of kinship, Country, or Law.

Drawing on Lyotard’s (1984) analysis of the postmodern condition, we can understand settler magical thinking as a response to the collapse of grand narratives. With religion, science, and nationalism offering diminishing moral coherence, the settler imagination turns to personal cosmologies composed of dreams, rituals, and decontextualized symbols. In this vacuum, truth becomes less about evidence than affect.

Psychological studies support this shift. Bronstein et al. (2019) link delusion-proneness and intuitive cognitive style to increased belief in conspiracy and pseudoscientific ideas. Farias et al. (2023) highlight the role of spiritual seeking in existential distress, while Ahmed and Tan (2022) show that narcissism and uniqueness-seeking are correlated with conspiratorial and magical worldviews. These traits, when filtered through white guilt and settler identity insecurity, produce a combustible affective cocktail: settlers want to feel Indigenous, without becoming accountable to Indigenous law.

3.2 Emotional Substitution and the Affective Simulacrum

Settler magical thinking substitutes emotional resonance for relational authority. In this dynamic, what we may call the affective simulacrum, feelings of reverence or grief are misinterpreted as proof of belonging. The settler confuses sincerity with legitimacy, and intuition with permission.

This dynamic allows simulations to flourish. Watego (2021) describes how Blak people must continually authenticate themselves through community, lineage, and governance, while white settlers are elevated by their affective investment alone. Performance replaces protocol, and sacredness is aestheticized.

This pattern is illustrated by the actions of non-Indigenous actors like Jake Cassar and members of the GuriNgai collective. During a protest at Kariong, a non-Aboriginal woman claimed ancestral authority based on dreamtime messages and emotional “connection to Country.” Her actions received favorable media coverage, while actual Aboriginal custodians’ objections were marginalized (Cooke, 2025c). This inversion exemplifies the violence of emotional substitution: settler narratives triumph not through evidence, but through affect.

3.3 Institutional Complicity and the Collapse of Verification

Institutions often reward magical thinking because it appears inclusive, emotional, and aligned with liberal ideals of harmony and unity. Yet in doing so, they legitimize imposture. Councils, schools, and even universities frequently defer to charismatic figures claiming Aboriginality without due diligence, fearing reputational damage or accusations of gatekeeping.

As Kolopenuk (2021) argues, this pattern reflects “epistemic theft“, a soft conquest wherein settler institutions extract Indigenous symbols, knowledge, and sacredness while abandoning protocols. Emotional sincerity is prioritized over community verification. The result is simulation with bureaucratic sanction.

The GuriNgai collective, for example, gained influence over local government consultation processes not through evidence of custodianship, but via compelling speeches, ceremonies, and media performances. As described by Cooke (2025b), the emotional force of their presentation allowed them to bypass genealogical scrutiny.

3.4 Three Logics of Simulation: Mapping Settler Epistemics

Logic	Mechanism	Outcome
Emotional Substitution	Feeling replaces verification	Cultural erasure
Mystical Authenticity	Dreams and intuition as evidence	Collapse of governance
Bureaucratic Performance	Tokenistic inclusion and affective language	Institutional complicity

These overlapping logics define settler magical thinking. They are not driven by malice, but by unresolved colonial desire.

3.5 Settler Fantasy and the Ontology of Reoccupation

Settler magical thinking is not simply a mistake, it is a reoccupation. It mimics sacredness to reinstate white control over land, meaning, and legitimacy. Moreton-Robinson (2015) frames this as white possessiveness: the settler impulse to convert everything, including epistemology, into property.

Globally, this manifests as conspirituality: a fusion of conspiracy and spirituality that enables settlers to claim sacredness without accountability. In Australia, this includes the fantasy of “earth keepers,” sovereign citizen healers, and eco-activists who perform ceremony without Aboriginal governance. These acts are not spiritual revolutions; they are colonial simulations masked in feathers, incense, and borrowed language (Cooke, 2025e).

3.6 From Sincerity to Structure: Toward Protocols of Truth

Disrupting settler magical thinking requires structural clarity. Sincerity cannot substitute for lineage. Intuition cannot override protocol. Institutions must establish mechanisms for identity verification, meaningful consultation, and education on cultural authority. Public discourse must shift from celebrating emotion to protecting epistemic sovereignty.

Ultimately, this is a battle over truth: not what feels sacred, but what is relationally earned. Blak Knowing cannot coexist with affective simulacra. The former is duty; the latter is desire.

---

Chapter 4: The Pseudolaw of the Land: Sovereign Citizens and Settler Reoccupation

4.1 Defining Pseudolaw

Pseudolaw functions as an epistemic simulation: it mimics the symbolic language of law without its procedural rigor or institutional legitimacy (Blancke & Boudry, 2021; Letrud, 2022). In Australia, the sovereign citizen or “SovCit” movement employs pseudolegal arguments to assert immunity from government authority. These include “Freeman on the Land” declarations, strawman theories, Uniform Commercial Code citations, and the claim that legal names are fictitious entities distinct from the “living man.” While appearing arcane, these doctrines serve more than ideological purposes: they function as rituals of sovereignty, allowing adherents to perform authority where none exists (Cooke, 2025a).

4.2 Pseudolaw and Spiritual Authority

What distinguishes Australian pseudolaw from its North American counterparts is its entanglement with New Age spirituality and Indigenous appropriation. Many SovCits assert their authority through mystical means invoking “natural lore,” “ancestral spirits,” or “original sovereign rights” to bypass government regulation. These beliefs resonate with broader patterns of conspirituality, which fuse magical thinking, cultic rhetoric, and a conspiratorial worldview (Ward & Voas, 2011).

The convergence of SovCit ideology with spiritual claims creates a potent performative system. In NSW and elsewhere around Australia, self-proclaimed elders and spiritual guides have issued faux Confirmation of Aboriginality (COA) documents, “tribal ID cards,” conducted unsanctioned smoking ceremonies, and claimed jurisdiction over Crown land under the guise of “original lore” (Cooke, 2025c). These actions are not cultural expression; they are settler reoccupations masquerading as sacred restoration.

4.3 Blak Law vs. Settler Pseudolaw

This conflation of pseudolaw with Aboriginal Law is epistemically dangerous. Aboriginal Law, also referred to as Lore, is a relational system of governance rooted in kinship, Country, and ceremony (Watson, 2015). It is verified through lineage, taught through generations, and maintained by Elders with cultural authority. By contrast, pseudolaw is self-declared and detached from community accountability.

The simulation of Aboriginal Law by SovCit actors not only misrepresents but also erases. When sovereign citizens claim “universal lore” or “common law from the Dreaming,” they overwrite millennia of custodial knowledge with settler fantasy. This leads to institutional confusion and public misinformation. Media coverage often conflates real Aboriginal resistance with settler imposture, further marginalizing legitimate voices (Cooke, 2025b).

4.4 Simulation as Legal Violence

Pseudolaw operates as a form of simulation that mimics the procedures of law while evacuating their substance. It replaces protocol with performance and deploys legal language as theatre. In doing so, it constitutes a symbolic violence against both the legal system and Aboriginal sovereignty. The cost is not just administrative confusion but real harm: stalled developments, diverted resources, and the erosion of institutional trust.

Settler pseudolaw does not arise from misunderstanding but from simulation. As TallBear (2013), Watson (2015), and Moreton-Robinson (2015) note, these are attempts to access land, legitimacy, and moral authority through mimicry. Pseudolaw becomes a tool of settler reoccupation: not through invasion, but through aesthetic possession.

4.5 Toward Institutional Clarity and Refusal

To protect Aboriginal Law and combat pseudolaw-based simulation, institutions must adopt clear verification and refusal protocols. These include:

• Independent genealogical verification in identity claims.
• Cultural governance consultation prior to site occupation or ceremonial performance.
• Legal recognition of pseudolaw as fraud under relevant statutes (see ASIC v ACBF Funeral Plans Pty Ltd, 2025).
• Public awareness campaigns distinguishing genuine Aboriginal People and Culture from settler imposture.

The integrity of Aboriginal sovereignty depends on epistemic clarity. Settler pseudolaw must not be confused with sacred tradition. Sovereignty is not a metaphor; it is a lived jurisdiction. And those who simulate it through theatrical legalisms must be publicly named, refused, and regulated.

In the next chapter, we turn to the inner workings of simulation itself: how settler impostors construct credibility through emotional, visual, and ritual performance. We will explore how institutions and media often collude in these simulations by privileging sentiment over truth.

---

Chapter 5: Credibility Machines: The Emotional and Aesthetic Infrastructure of Simulation

5.1 The Affective Power of Simulation

The success of settler simulation is not only epistemic but affective. Emotional resonance, aesthetic familiarity, and performative sincerity are deployed to construct credibility. This emotional infrastructure allows impostor figures to gain legitimacy without verification. Their appeal lies in the aesthetic reproduction of Aboriginal signs: yidaki playing, painted faces, symbolic smoking ceremonies, and storytelling performances detached from kinship and protocol (Cooke, 2025a).

This phenomenon can be understood as the emergence of credibility machines, affective assemblages that produce the illusion of legitimacy through sentiment, style, and symbolic performance. These machines exploit the settler desire for connection, transcendence, and absolution, offering decontextualized rituals and mythic narratives as substitutes for the hard truths of colonial responsibility and Aboriginal Law.

5.2 Aesthetic Familiarity and the Simulation of Sacredness

Institutions often struggle to distinguish simulation from sovereignty because simulation mimics the aesthetics of cultural authority. When institutions reward aesthetic cues, such as tone, dress, or language, without verifying relational ties, they enable the rise of charismatic impostors. Such figures learn which visual and emotional signs elicit validation and reproduce them strategically. This is why performative welcomes, faux spiritual workshops, and unverified “ceremonies” are so effective: they resonate affectively, even when they are epistemically hollow (Watego, 2021; Watson, 2015).

The settler tendency to equate emotional impact with cultural legitimacy is central to this problem. Credibility becomes a function of performance, not protocol. As Kolopenuk (2021) argues, Indigenous knowledge is often reduced to aesthetic spectacle within settler institutions, particularly when mediated through performative reconciliation.

5.3 Digital Platforms and the Spectacle of Simulation

The rise of social media has amplified the credibility machine. Platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube enable impostor figures to broadcast their performances widely, gaining followers, financial support, and institutional attention. Livestreamed ceremonies, affective rants, and mythic retellings are algorithmically rewarded, creating an echo chamber where simulation is validated by visibility.

In the case of the GuriNgai collective, social media (Facebook) and online genealogy websites played a central role in constructing the illusion of consensus. Their activities, often performed without community consent, were framed as educational or spiritual interventions. These performances were then used to leverage invitations to schools, councils, and events, effectively converting aesthetic resonance into institutional capital (Cooke, 2025c).

5.4 Credibility as Institutional Failure

Institutions are complicit in the success of credibility machines when they fail to establish verification protocols. Schools that invite unverified speakers, councils that host faux ceremonies, and media outlets that amplify impostor narratives all contribute to the epistemic infrastructure of simulation. Often, this complicity arises from fear: the fear of appearing exclusionary, of questioning someone’s identity, or of disrupting reconciliation efforts.

Yet this fear enables harm. As Watson (2015) argues, refusal is a necessary act of sovereignty. Institutions must develop the capacity to say no; to demand lineage, to verify connection, and to protect sacred knowledge from aesthetic capture. Without such protocols, the boundary between performance and authority collapses.

5.5 Beyond Sentiment: Reclaiming Epistemic Authority

Blak Knowing is not merely a knowledge system; it is a governance structure. It cannot be accessed through sentiment, performance, or self-declaration. It must be protected through relational verification, communal accountability, and rigorous cultural governance. To dismantle the credibility machine, institutions must reject affective shortcuts and re-embed Aboriginal authority within all cultural engagements.

Public education is vital. Australians must learn that cultural performance is not evidence of cultural authority. Emotional resonance is not truth. And spiritual spectacle is not sovereignty. Only through this understanding can epistemic sovereignty be restored.

The next chapter will examine how this spectacle of simulation intersects with far-right ideology and environmental obstruction, creating hybrid movements that weaponize Aboriginal identity to delay or derail Indigenous-led development.

---

Chapter 6: Hijacked Sacredness: Simulation and the Sabotage of Aboriginal Governance

6.1 Epistemic Erosion Through Simulation

Settler simulation does not merely misrepresent Aboriginal identity; it strategically erodes the epistemic infrastructure that upholds it. Simulation replaces intergenerational obligation with aesthetic sincerity, such as when institutions substitute rigorous cultural consultation with public gestures like unverified Welcome to Country performances, or platforming self-declared custodians based on spiritual charisma rather than genealogical legitimacy, converting protocols into performance and Law into spectacle. This epistemic violence manifests most clearly in governance: where impostors insert themselves into decision-making spaces, create faux community organizations, and bypass Aboriginal accountability structures (Cooke, 2025c).

These simulations function as epistemic counterfeits: they mimic the appearance of cultural authority while severing it from kinship, Law, and recognition. The result is not just confusion, but displacement. Real Aboriginal leaders are pushed aside, delegitimized, or exhausted by the institutional labor of constantly correcting imposture. Governance becomes distorted by simulation, undermining both cultural and procedural integrity.

6.2 Sabotage in Practice: The Case of the GuriNgai Collective

On the Central Coast of New South Wales, the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai group exemplifies how simulation sabotages governance. Presenting themselves as traditional custodians, this collective has inserted itself into development negotiations, school curricula, heritage consultations, and environmental campaigns without recognized community standing or genealogical ties. Their performances include smoking ceremonies, yarning circles, and public rituals, securing them institutional invitations, such as appearances at local council events and inclusion in public consultations, despite ongoing objections from recognized Aboriginal authorities (Cooke, 2025b), funding, and credibility (Cooke, 2025b).

However, their claims are not supported by cultural authority. Recognized Aboriginal bodies such as Darkinjung LALC, and Metro LALC have repeatedly rejected their legitimacy. Despite this, the GuriNgai collective continues to operate with institutional support, exploiting a vacuum of verification. Their actions have delayed or blocked Aboriginal-led developments, redefined community representation, and eroded trust in heritage consultation processes.

6.3 Institutions as Enablers

The sabotage of governance is rarely the sole work of impostors. It is enabled by institutional hesitancy. Schools, councils, universities, and environmental groups frequently fail to consult with legitimate cultural authorities or verify genealogical claims. Instead, they reward performance, affect, and presence. Here, ‘affect’ refers to the ability of claimants to generate emotional resonance, through charisma, trauma narratives, or spiritual rhetoric, while ‘presence’ refers to their physical visibility at events, ceremonial performances, or public consultations. These traits often stand in for cultural legitimacy, especially in institutions lacking verification frameworks. In doing so, they create pathways for simulation to displace sovereignty.

This institutional complicity is often rooted in fear: fear of appearing exclusionary, of challenging identity claims, or of disrupting reconciliation narratives. Yet true reconciliation requires epistemic integrity. Without it, institutions risk becoming battlegrounds for competing simulations, rather than sites of justice and accountability.

6.4 The Weaponization of Heritage

Simulation is often most effective when paired with heritage discourse. Pseudo-custodians claim to protect sacred sites or defend Country, reframing themselves as spiritual guardians. In reality, these campaigns often serve settler agendas: opposing Aboriginal-led development, obstructing housing projects, or asserting territorial authority over land to which they have no recognized ties.

The Kariong case is a striking example. In this instance, GuriNgai affiliates and Coast Environmental Alliance activists mobilized around a non-recognized ‘sacred’ site, leveraging spiritual language, media campaigns, and heritage protections to block Darkinjung LALC-run development, of Darkinjung LALC owned land. Legitimate custodians, including Darkinjung leaders and local community, openly refuted the GuriNgai claims, describing them as fraudulent and culturally harmful. Nevertheless, media coverage and political ambiguity often elevated the impostors’ voices while silencing or sidelining the rightful custodians, eroding public trust in authentic governance processes (Cooke, 2025c). GuriNgai affiliates and their allies in the Coast Environmental Alliance launched media campaigns, organized protests, and lobbied politicians to block development on the grounds of cultural heritage. Yet the sites in question were not recognized by legitimate custodians, and the campaigns actively undermined Aboriginal governance bodies who had approved the developments (Cooke, 2025c).

This weaponization of heritage transforms sacredness into a political tool. It erodes genuine protection by flooding the system with false claims, diminishing the credibility of legitimate custodians. Simulation becomes a form of cultural warfare, waged through symbols, rituals, and bureaucratic ambiguity.

6.5 Resisting Simulation: Protecting the Sacred

To resist this sabotage, institutions must uphold protocols of cultural verification. This means consulting with recognized Aboriginal organizations, respecting genealogical legitimacy, and rejecting claims that are not grounded in relational accountability. Cultural competence must be expanded to include epistemic discernment.

Furthermore, Aboriginal communities require structural protections. Verification frameworks must be Culturally institutionalized, and impostor claims subjected to due scrutiny. Institutions should adopt or align with existing models such as the AIATSIS ‘Proof of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent’ guidelines, as well as recommendations from Land Councils and Aboriginal governance bodies. These frameworks provide clear standards for genealogical verification, community recognition, and cultural authority, helping ensure that institutional engagement respects the sovereignty of Aboriginal law and epistemology. Funding, access, and representation must be contingent upon recognition by sovereign Aboriginal governance structures.

Most importantly, institutions must center Aboriginal law, authority, and epistemology; not as aesthetic inclusion, but as a governing principle. Without this, the sacred will remain vulnerable to simulation, and governance will continue to be sabotaged by the most charismatic claimant, rather than the most legitimate one.

The next chapter will explore how this spectacle of simulation intersects with far-right ideology and environmental obstruction, creating hybrid movements that weaponize Aboriginal identity to delay or derail Indigenous-led development.

---

Chapter 7: Weaponized Identity: Simulation, Alt-Right Convergence, and Epistemic Warfare

7.1 From Ceremony to Psy-Op: The Political Turn in Simulation

While settler simulation often presents as a cultural or spiritual performance, it increasingly functions as a political technology: a performative mimicry of Aboriginal identity and authority by non-Indigenous actors, designed to assert settler legitimacy and undermine Indigenous governance under the guise of cultural or spiritual belonging. In recent years, this masquerade has fused with alt-right conspiracism, pseudolaw, and New Age spirituality to produce a new mode of settler insurgency; one that uses Aboriginal symbolism not to affirm Indigenous sovereignty, but to destabilize it. This convergence repositions cultural imposture as a tool of ideological warfare.

At the heart of this synthesis is the manipulation of identity. Simulation, once confined to symbolic terrain, now serves as a mechanism for undermining Aboriginal land rights. A clear example is the prolonged campaign against development at Kariong on the Central Coast of New South Wales, where individuals with no verifiable Aboriginal ancestry claimed sacred custodianship to block proposals supported by legitimate Aboriginal Land Councils (Cooke, 2025c). Institutional actors, such as local councils and heritage consultants, often treated these claims as equally valid in the absence of robust verification protocols, effectively giving impostor groups equal standing with recognized custodians and enabling delays, misinformation, and jurisdictional confusion. The convergence with conspiracist networks, including My Place, Community Voice Australia, and online sovereign citizen hubs, elevates impostor Indigeneity into a broader campaign of institutional sabotage (Cooke, 2025c; JD Cooke, 2025e). These networks do not merely appropriate Aboriginality—they weaponize it.

7.2 Conspirituality and the Rise of Settler Insurgency

The convergence of New Age spirituality with conspiratorial ideology, termed conspirituality, refers to the fusion of holistic wellness beliefs and metaphysical narratives with conspiracy thinking. It is a hybrid belief system characterized by a shared distrust of mainstream institutions and a conviction that secret knowledge or hidden forces control society. This convergence forms the epistemic infrastructure underpinning these movements and links directly to the broader conflict between Blak epistemology and settler magical thinking introduced in the following paragraph. As Ward and Voas (2011) first observed, conspirituality blends holistic wellness beliefs with a deep distrust of institutions, producing a paranoid mysticism that claims both awakening and persecution. In the Australian context, this hybrid belief system finds fertile ground in settler guilt, white spiritual longing, and fantasies of ancestral connection.

Through conspirituality, settler Australians are able to imagine themselves as spiritually “awakened” guardians of the land, as exemplified by high-profile figures such as Jake Cassar, who frequently blends Aboriginal symbolism with sovereign citizen rhetoric in public protests, or the proliferation of “tribal awakening” workshops promoted on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram (Cooke, 2025d; JD Cooke, 2025e), while simultaneously resisting government authority, Aboriginal governance, and evidence-based frameworks. The fantasy is total: to be both Indigenous and sovereign, both ancient and dissident, both victim and saviour. The result is an epistemic simulation of Indigenous identity, designed to displace rather than support Aboriginal sovereignty.

This convergence is visible in the activities of figures like Jake Cassar and the Coast Environmental Alliance, who blend environmental activism with performative custodianship, often opposing developments approved by recognized Aboriginal land councils. These actors use symbols of sacredness not as expressions of relational knowledge, but as tools of political, and money making spectacle (Cooke, 2025d).

7.3 Simulated Indigeneity in Far-Right Networks

The fusion of simulation and conspiracism has gained momentum through the rise of far-right movements in Australia, which increasingly co-opt Aboriginal iconography and rhetoric. At protests organized by My Place or the Freedom Movement, it is common to see non-Indigenous people bearing Aboriginal flags, reciting “sovereign law,” or claiming to represent “Original lore.”

These acts are colonizing in disguise. They replace community-based sovereignty with individualistic rebellion, reducing relational governance to personal spiritual entitlement. Figures within these networks frequently claim to speak for “the ancestors” or channel “ancient law,” while rejecting verification, governance, and accountability.

Such impostures are not accidental; they are strategically cultivated. The sovereign citizen movement, for instance, has embraced Aboriginal imagery to legitimize its rejection of state authority. By claiming alignment with “original law” or “lore,” these actors attempt to obscure their settler roots and co-opt decolonial language for libertarian agendas (Cooke, 2025f). In some cases, fake “treaties” are drafted, self-declared “tribes” are formed, and “landback” is recoded as settler occupation under the guise of spiritual custodianship.

7.4 Disinformation and the Emotional Economy of Simulation

Simulation does not spread merely through ideology; it spreads through affect. As Darnett (2025) and Bronstein et al. (2019) note, people are drawn to emotionally resonant narratives, especially in times of institutional distrust and social fragmentation. The simulation of Indigeneity often appeals to affective cues: trauma narratives, mystical language, and utopian visions of unity.

Digital platforms accelerate this affective economy. On TikTok, Instagram, and Telegram, simulation spreads as content: short clips of unverified figures claiming Aboriginal identity or performing ceremonies have garnered thousands of views. Similarly, Telegram channels linked to the Freedom Movement have repeatedly platformed content blending faux-Indigenous narratives with anti-government rhetoric (JD Cooke, 2025e). These short videos of impostors conducting ceremonies, explaining “dreaming science,” or declaring their tribal identity are rarely challenged; they are liked, shared, and monetized. In the algorithmic ecosystem, sincerity is performative and verification is optional. This creates a dangerous paradox: the more emotionally compelling the simulation, the more legitimate it appears.

Disinformation campaigns often reinforce these simulations. False claims about sacred sites, stolen land, or cultural revival circulate alongside anti-vaccine conspiracies, sovereign citizen ideology, and QAnon-style messaging. The ideological mesh is dense, but its function is clear: to destabilize institutions, erode trust, and elevate simulation over sovereignty.

7.5 Epistemic Warfare and the Delegitimization of Authority

These convergences are not random; they constitute a form of epistemic warfare. As Kolopenuk (2021) argues, settler societies increasingly engage in practices that delegitimize Indigenous knowledge by simulating its form while erasing its substance. By mimicking ceremonial practices, invoking sacred language, and claiming spiritual alignment, settler actors create a false equivalency between imposture and cultural authority.

This epistemic warfare is particularly devastating in legal and policy settings. When institutions treat all identity claims as equally valid, regardless of verification, they create space for bad-faith actors to obstruct Aboriginal governance. In development consultations, impostor groups assert veto power over land use. In educational settings, they provide “cultural training” without authority. In media spaces, they dominate the conversation with fabricated narratives.

Such dynamics shift the burden onto Aboriginal people to constantly prove, defend, and reassert their legitimacy. This epistemic imbalance is not only exhausting but harmful, demanding emotional labor while rewarding imposture. This is not just exhausting; it is violent. It reproduces the logic of colonization by forcing Aboriginal sovereignty to compete with its simulation in every public domain.

7.6 Resisting Epistemic Infiltration

To counter this infiltration, institutions must recognize Indigenous Identity Appropriation and Fraud not as misunderstanding, but as strategy. They must refuse to platform or fund individuals or organizations that lack verification from legitimate Aboriginal governance bodies. Verification processes must be robust, transparent, and culturally led.

In parallel, public education must expose how simulation operates: through aesthetics, affect, and disinformation. Schools, universities, and media platforms must teach the difference between sovereign knowledge and its counterfeit. This means explaining kinship, Law, governance, and the protocols that define cultural authority; not merely celebrating Indigenous “voices” without context or legitimacy.

Finally, digital regulation must address the simulation of Indigeneity as a form of disinformation. Just as platforms have moved to flag false medical claims or electoral misinformation, they must consider the harms of epistemic simulation. When impostors monetize Aboriginal identity or use it to undermine real custodianship, this constitutes a breach of cultural safety and should be treated as such.

7.7 Conclusion: Indigenous Identity Appropriation and Fraud as Settler Counterinsurgency

Indigenous Identity Appropriation and Fraud is not simply a cultural problem. It is a political and epistemological strategy—one that allows settler Australia to reoccupy space under the guise of spiritual renewal. Through the convergence of far-right politics, conspirituality, pseudolaw, and performance, simulation functions as settler counterinsurgency: a method of destabilizing Aboriginal governance while appropriating its symbols.

To defend against this, we must name the tactic, expose the networks, and center the custodians who hold real authority. This includes instituting clear boundaries around cultural authority: embedding verification protocols in funding and consultation processes, deferring to recognized Aboriginal governance bodies, and implementing culturally-led mechanisms for protocol enforcement. Without such institutional frameworks, the simulation will continue to flourish unchecked. Aboriginal sovereignty cannot be protected by aesthetics or feeling. It must be upheld through governance, law, and relational truth.

The next chapter will turn to those very frameworks: to the practices of verification, education, and relational accountability that can restore epistemic integrity and protect the sacred from simulation.

---

Chapter 8: Protocols, Protection, and the Reassertion of Blak Epistemology

8.1 From Exposure to Infrastructure: Why Naming Is Not Enough

The previous chapters have mapped the architecture of Indigenous Identity Appropriation and Fraud: its emotional appeal, digital spread, conspiratorial roots, and political function. Yet exposing simulation is only the first step. As recent controversies around the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai collective and its affiliates illustrate (Cooke, 2025c), exposure alone does not deter simulation; instead, it can generate publicity, platforming, and further entrenchment of fraud. Without structural enforcement mechanisms, exposure becomes performative rather than transformative.

Indigenous Identity Appropriation and Fraud adapts to critique through digital virality and emotional rhetoric, and it flourishes where systems fail to enforce epistemic boundaries. The next, more difficult task is constructing and resourcing the protocols, systems, and structures that protect sovereign epistemology. This requires moving from critique to governance, from outrage to enforcement.

Blak Knowing, as demonstrated throughout this work, is not a loose collection of spiritual ideas but a system of law, kinship, and knowledge transmission. This law, often referred to as Aboriginal Law or ‘Lore,’ is not analogous to Western legal systems based on written codes or statutory interpretation. Rather, it is a living system of governance embedded in story, ceremony, kinship obligations, and custodial relationships to Country. It governs social behavior, land responsibilities, spiritual life, and the ethics of knowledge sharing across generations, making it foundational to Indigenous sovereignty and epistemic authority. It is held through ceremonial governance, verified community, and relational authority. Any attempt to protect this knowledge must begin by affirming these structures and prioritizing their leadership. As Watson (2014) and Moreton-Robinson (2015) argue, the core of sovereignty lies not only in land but in law: in the authority to govern knowledge, belonging, and meaning on one’s own terms.

8.2 Strengthening Verification Protocols

A critical foundation for this protection is robust verification. Identity fraud thrives where systems are vague, reliant on self-identification, or hesitant to challenge bad-faith claims. Verification must be more than a box-tick exercise. For example, the University of Melbourne’s implementation of its Indigenous Verification Framework requires confirmation through registered Aboriginal organizations and community endorsement, establishing a rigorous process that resists bad-faith claims. This approach demonstrates that institutions can align with cultural governance while fulfilling legal obligations, offering a model for others to follow. It must be culturally-led, informed by governance bodies such as Aboriginal Land Councils, prescribed bodies corporate, or other recognized community organizations with genealogical and cultural authority.

Institutions should look to existing frameworks, such as the AIATSIS guidelines for confirmation of Aboriginality, as a minimum threshold, while recognizing that cultural governance often requires deeper consultation with Elders and community-appointed representatives. Legal precedent, as seen in ASIC v ACBF ([2025] FCA 756), establishes that false claims to Aboriginal status for material benefit constitute fraud, affirming that verification is not merely symbolic but a regulatory necessity. Cultural verification must be driven not merely by archival records or genealogical charts, but by standing in community: who recognizes you, who teaches you, and to whom you are answerable. A model of effective refusal can be seen in the MLALC and DLALC responses to false GuriNgai claims, where cultural authority was asserted through governance rather than emotional appeal.

8.3 Institutionalizing Cultural Safety and Epistemic Integrity

Universities, government departments, schools, and NGOs must embed epistemic integrity into their procedures. This includes establishing Indigenous advisory bodies with veto power over cultural programming, heritage engagement, and Indigenous content creation. It also means funding community-controlled organizations to lead cultural programs, rather than outsourcing to unverified individuals who mimic authority.

Cultural safety must be redefined to include epistemic safety: protection against the infiltration of fraudulent knowledge systems that mimic Indigenous authority. Such frameworks should explicitly disallow the platforming of unverified individuals in speaking roles, cultural education, or media production. Training for staff in Indigenous governance, verification standards, and simulation risks must become a core professional requirement. This training should include modules co-designed with Aboriginal community-controlled organizations, such as Local Aboriginal Land Councils and cultural centers, to ensure culturally legitimate content. Programs might incorporate the AIATSIS Core Cultural Learning Framework or similar initiatives that teach protocols, kinship governance, and community accountability. Partnerships with organizations like the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute can also strengthen institutional understanding of epistemic sovereignty, offering scenario-based learning, ethical consultation frameworks, and ongoing cultural supervision.

8.4 Digital Accountability and Cultural Disinformation

Digital platforms must treat simulation as a form of disinformation, subject to the same scrutiny as health or electoral misinformation. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube all carry content that misrepresents Indigenous identity, often going viral before correction or takedown. For instance, a widely shared TikTok video from July 2025 falsely claimed GuriNgai descent while soliciting donations, generating over 40,000 views before it was challenged by community reports (guringai.org, 2025).

Platforms should be required to establish verification pathways for Indigenous content creators, flag content with unverifiable claims, and respond to community reports with cultural authority. Legislative reform, potentially building on the Online Safety Act (2021), may be necessary to mandate platform accountability in this domain, just as regulation has emerged around online abuse, misinformation, and defamation. Indigenous media organizations should be funded to monitor, report, and counter simulation online. This is not censorship; it is cultural protection.

8.5 Public Education: Teaching the Difference

Epistemic sovereignty must be defended not only through regulation but through education. Public curricula must move beyond generic “Aboriginal perspectives” and include teachings about governance, kinship, verification, and the structures of cultural authority. This includes unpacking the difference between performance and responsibility, between ceremonial protocol and aesthetic mimicry.

Curriculum should progress from early-years cultural respect to senior-level instruction on Indigenous governance systems, identity protocols, and simulation detection. Notable models that have successfully taken this approach include the ‘8 Ways of Learning’ framework (Yunkaporta, 2009), which embeds cultural pedagogy across mainstream classrooms, and the Strong Souls program in Victoria, which integrates cultural immersion and yarning circles in education and wellbeing. These initiatives demonstrate that culturally grounded curricula are both achievable and transformative when designed in partnership with community governance. The inclusion of texts such as Oscar’s (2020) Wiyi Yani U Thangani report and the 8 Ways of Learning framework (Yunkaporta, 2009) can help embed Indigenous epistemologies as legitimate, sovereign systems. Schools must also teach the risks of simulation and imposture, explaining why authenticity matters, how communities identify impostors, and what responsibility non-Indigenous Australians hold in resisting simulation. Embedding culturally legitimate practices such as yarning, storywork, and community consultation across all learning stages can reinforce these values from childhood onward (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010).

8.6 Funding Sovereignty, Not Simulation

Funding bodies must reassess their due diligence practices. Many simulations are empowered through grant programs, council funds, or cultural partnerships that fail to vet applicants. Institutions must defer to Indigenous governance bodies in allocating cultural grants, project partnerships, or public appointments.

This means prioritizing relational accountability: funding people who are accountable to a community, not just personally compelling. It means rejecting funding bids that use Aboriginal symbolism without cultural permission. And it means creating complaint pathways that allow legitimate custodians to challenge impostors within funded programs. The bungaree.org case study of a major council-funded arts initiative led by an unverified claimant highlights the risks of bypassing community protocols in favor of aesthetic charisma.

8.7 Conclusion: Reclaiming the Sacred

Simulation flourishes where institutions lack backbone, verification is optional, and cultural performance is mistaken for authority. The restoration of epistemic sovereignty demands structural, not symbolic, reform. It requires listening to Elders, centering community governance, and refusing the seduction of aesthetic authenticity.

The future of Blak epistemology will not be protected by good intentions alone. It will be secured through governance, policy, education, and law. As custodians assert: it is not enough to feel connected. One must be recognized, taught, and accountable.

Blak Knowing is not a metaphor. It is a law. And it is time settler institutions respected it as such.

The final chapter will turn from institutional practice to philosophical grounding, mapping a cultural manifesto that reasserts the boundary between the sacred and its simulation.

---

Conclusion: Restoring Epistemic Sovereignty in the Face of Simulation

This work has traced the complex, intertwined dynamics of settler conspirituality, identity fraud, and the systemic simulation of Aboriginality in contemporary Australia. At its core lies a profound epistemic crisis—a battle over who has the authority to know, speak, and govern Indigenous knowledge and identity. The stakes are not merely cultural or symbolic; they are deeply political, juridical, and existential. Simulation is a form of epistemic violence that erodes Aboriginal sovereignty by substituting relational authority with settler affect, governance with performance, and Law with fantasy.

As the late Professor Marcia Langton has observed, “The theft of Indigenous knowledge is a theft of sovereignty itself” (Langton, 2022, p. 14). This testament underscores the real-world impact of epistemic violence: Indigenous communities endure ongoing dispossession not only of land but of their rightful authority to define identity and knowledge.

The enduring resilience of Blak Knowing offers a counterpoint: an epistemology rooted in kinship, Country, ceremony, and collective responsibility. It demands accountability, verifiable lineage, and respect for protocols that cannot be bypassed or commodified. Reclaiming epistemic sovereignty is thus inseparable from the broader struggle for Aboriginal self-determination, cultural survival, and legal recognition.

Institutions bear a critical responsibility to dismantle complicity in simulation by instituting rigorous identity verification, defunding imposture, and prioritizing Aboriginal governance. This requires structural reform across education, heritage, arts, and policymaking sectors, underpinned by Indigenous-led frameworks and community consultation. The AIATSIS three-part test of descent, self-identification, and community recognition provides a robust foundation for such reform (AIATSIS, 2023). Public education initiatives must accompany these reforms to build widespread understanding of the distinction between authentic Blak epistemology and settler mimicry, moving beyond superficial recognition toward genuine relational accountability.

Globally, Indigenous peoples are confronting similar challenges to epistemic sovereignty; from the “Pretendian” controversies in North America (Leroux, 2019; TallBear, 2021) to epistemic reclamation efforts among First Nations in Canada and Maori in New Zealand (Kolopenuk, 2023). These transnational struggles illustrate the structural nature of settler-colonial epistemicide and the shared determination of Indigenous communities to protect knowledge as a living foundation of sovereignty.

This ongoing struggle demands intergenerational commitment. Reclaiming epistemic sovereignty is not a momentary victory but a continuous project of vigilance, repair, and renewal. It requires constant boundary-setting and the cultivation of cultural literacy among both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

For settler Australians, this work calls for deep critical self-reflection and active allyship grounded in humility, accountability, and respect. Allyship means listening without interruption, deferring to Indigenous authority, and challenging institutional complicity in simulation. It is a refusal to indulge settler fantasies of belonging that come at the expense of Indigenous peoples.

Above all, this work reaffirms the strength, continuity, and vitality of Blak Knowing. Indigenous knowledge systems are not relics of the past; they are vibrant, dynamic, and foundational to Australia’s future. Honoring this epistemology is not only a matter of justice but a necessity for a more truthful, reconciled, and sovereign nation.

---

Chapter 9: Cultural Sovereignty and the Sacred Line – A Manifesto Against Simulation

9.1 Introduction: From Analysis to Assertion

Having charted the emotional, digital, juridical, and institutional architecture of settler simulation, this final chapter turns from critique to clarity. It offers a cultural manifesto grounded in the sovereign logic of Blak epistemology and the necessity of defending it from symbolic incursion. Where earlier chapters exposed the operations of simulation, here the line is redrawn: not through academic distance, but through ethical refusal.

Blak Knowing, as reiterated throughout this work, is not merely a cultural perspective. It is a sovereign, living system of knowledge, carried through kinship, Country, and ceremonial Law. It does not ask to be understood by settler frameworks, but demands recognition on its own terms. And it demands the drawing of a line between what is legitimate and what is simulation.

9.2 Naming the Line: What Cannot Be Imitated

Simulation does not begin with bad faith; it begins with desire. Settler individuals do not only appropriate identity for gain. Often, they are drawn to Indigeneity as a perceived remedy for spiritual or epistemic dislocation. They seek meaning, belonging, and sacredness. But these desires, however sincere, are not neutral. When pursued without permission, protocol, or lineage, they become extractive.

To resist simulation is to draw a boundary. This boundary is not exclusionary; it is protective. It does not gatekeep culture; it defends kin-based authority. The line distinguishes between:

• Kinship and fantasy;
• Ceremony and performance;
• Law and metaphor;
• Governance and charisma;
• Accountability and affect.

Blak Knowing cannot be downloaded, channeled, or felt into being. It is taught. It is transmitted. It is relational. As Watson (2014) asserts, knowledge in Aboriginal Law is not a commodity, it is a responsibility that must be earned, verified, and held in trust.

9.3 Simulation as Epistemic Violence

Simulation is not merely mimicry. It is a form of symbolic violence that displaces real custodians, undermines cultural governance, and floods the public sphere with false equivalencies. As TallBear (2013) and Moreton-Robinson (2015) argue, settler mimicry of Indigeneity reproduces colonial power by reassigning legitimacy through settler feeling rather than Aboriginal law.

This violence is often invisible to those who enact it. It appears as reverence, allyship, or healing. But beneath the surface, it functions to re-center settler narratives, emotions, and subjectivities. Simulation converts Aboriginal ceremony into settler catharsis. It uses Aboriginal symbols as tools for white self-discovery. It performs Indigeneity while silencing Indigenous governance.

The “good intentions” of simulation are not a defense. As Watego (2021) notes, settler harm is often enacted with sincerity. What matters is not intent, but impact.

9.4 Defending Epistemic Sovereignty: The Role of Refusal

Cultural sovereignty must be defended through active refusal: of imposture, of symbolic substitution, of institutional complicity. Refusal is not resistance for its own sake, it is the assertion of an epistemic boundary grounded in Culture and Law.

Refusal means saying no to invitations that bypass governance. It means walking out when impostors are platformed. It means calling out simulation, even when it is cloaked in reconciliation rhetoric. It means holding institutions accountable to Indigenous protocols, not just for inclusion, but for legitimacy.

Examples of refusal already exist. The MLALC’s challenge to GuriNgai identity fraud, the DLALC’s rejection of unverified custodianship claims, and the actions of Bungaree’s descendants in defending legitimate heritage boundaries all demonstrate what refusal looks like in practice: not as hostility, but as truth-telling grounded in kinship and Law.

9.5 Manifesto for Cultural Sovereignty

The following principles offer a foundational template for institutions, policymakers, and communities committed to defending cultural legitimacy in the face of simulation:

• Lineage is not optional. Indigenous identity must be verifiable through community-recognized genealogies and kinship structures. Self-declaration is not sufficient.
• Cultural authority is relational. Authority comes from being taught, not from feeling connected. It is earned, not assumed.
• Protocol before platform. Institutions must defer to cultural governance structures before inviting, funding, or endorsing individuals who claim Aboriginal identity or custodianship.
• Verification is protection. Cultural safety requires systems that prevent imposture, not just those that support inclusion. Verification protocols must be standard practice.
• Feeling is not fact. Emotional resonance with Aboriginal culture does not constitute belonging. White desire must not override Blak Law.
• Sacredness is not aesthetic. Sacred knowledge is not symbolic or performative—it is sovereign. It cannot be simulated without violence.
• Refusal is a right. Aboriginal communities have the right to say no—to impostors, to institutions, to simulations of Indigeneity. This is not exclusion—it is protection.

9.6 The Sacred Line

At the heart of this work is a sacred line. It is not drawn by settlers, institutions, or academics. It is held by custodians, taught through Law, and protected by relational governance. It is the line between knowledge and its simulation. Between being and performance. Between truth and theft.

This line cannot be crossed without consequence. The future of Aboriginal sovereignty depends on our collective willingness to defend it.

Blak Knowing is not a vibe. It is not a story anyone can tell. It is not a costume, a workshop, or a feeling. It is a living epistemology carried by people, place, and Law. To honor it, we must do more than include; we must defer. We must listen. We must know where the line is, and refuse to cross it.

JD Cooke

---

Glossary

Affective Indigeneity A mode of identity performance that uses emotion, intuition, or personal narrative to claim Aboriginal belonging, often bypassing genealogical descent and community recognition. It privileges feeling over verification and is frequently associated with settler mimicry.

AIATSIS Three-Part Test A framework used to verify Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity in Australia. It requires (1) descent from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, (2) self-identification as such, and (3) recognition by the relevant Indigenous community (AIATSIS, 2023).

Blak Knowing An epistemological framework rooted in Aboriginal worldviews, kinship structures, Law, and Country. It embodies collective, intergenerational knowledge governed by cultural protocols and community accountability (Graham, 2008; Watson, 2014; Watego, 2021).

Conspirituality A belief system that fuses New Age spirituality with conspiracist ideologies such as sovereign citizenship, anti-vaccination, and ecofascism. In settler contexts, it often manifests as settler spiritual narcissism claiming alignment with Indigenous knowledge while opposing Indigenous sovereignty (Halafoff et al., 2022).

Cultural Authority The recognized right of Aboriginal individuals or communities to speak on matters of culture, heritage, and Country. This authority is earned through kinship ties, community recognition, and adherence to cultural Law—not through performance or self-declaration.

Cultural Governance The right and responsibility of Indigenous peoples to manage, protect, and transmit cultural knowledge, protocols, and identity in accordance with their own laws and structures, independent of settler validation.

Epistemic Mimicry A process by which settler actors imitate Indigenous ways of knowing to gain legitimacy. This imitation lacks cultural accountability and often distorts or commodifies Indigenous epistemologies.

Epistemic Repair The process of restoring and protecting Indigenous knowledge systems from misrepresentation, erasure, or fraud. It includes truth-telling, restitution, and institutional reform aimed at re-establishing Indigenous authority.

Epistemic Sovereignty The right of Indigenous communities to control the production, validation, and dissemination of their own knowledge systems. It challenges settler institutions’ authority to determine what counts as Indigenous knowledge.

Epistemic Violence The harm caused when dominant institutions erase, distort, or appropriate Indigenous knowledge, identity, or voice, often under the guise of inclusion or recognition (Spivak, 1988; Watson, 2014).

Identity Fraud (Indigenous) The act of falsely claiming Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identity for personal, cultural, or material gain. This includes individuals who fabricate genealogies, rely solely on family lore, or use spiritual narratives to bypass community recognition.

Institutional Complicity The role of state, academic, media, or cultural institutions in enabling identity fraud by platforming unverified claimants, funding simulated groups, or ignoring community objections.

Pretendian A term originating in North America referring to individuals who falsely claim Indigenous identity. The term has been adopted in Australian contexts to describe similar patterns of identity fraud and settler simulation (Leroux, 2019; The Pretendian Problem, n.d.).

Settler Conspirituality A form of spiritual appropriation in which settler Australians combine New Age mysticism, conspiracy theory, and anti-government ideology while claiming spiritual affinity with Aboriginal culture. It often masks political resistance to Aboriginal land rights and sovereignty.

Settler Magical Thinking A cognitive and cultural tendency among settler populations to use intuition, myth, or fantasy as a substitute for historical accountability. It often manifests in beliefs about “spiritual connection” to land, past lives as Aboriginal people, or inherited sacred knowledge, and is used to bypass Aboriginal protocols.

Settler Simulation The performance of Aboriginal identity, culture, or custodianship by non-Indigenous individuals, particularly when lacking descent, community recognition, or cultural authority. Drawing on Baudrillard’s (1994) theory of hyperreality, simulation refers to the reproduction of Indigeneity as a symbolic aesthetic rather than a lived relational reality.

Spiritual Narcissism A dynamic in which individuals use spiritual identity or rhetoric to elevate their moral status, often while co-opting or appropriating Indigenous cultural authority. This is especially visible in white women’s performances of the “divine feminine” as custodial.

White Possessiveness A settler-colonial logic in which whiteness asserts ownership over land, culture, and narrative. It underpins much identity fraud and settler simulation by positioning the white subject as entitled to Indigeneity (Moreton-Robinson, 2015).

Welcome to Country (Simulation) The appropriation of ceremonial practices such as Welcome to Country by individuals without cultural authority, often sanctioned by councils or institutions that fail to verify Aboriginal descent or community recognition.

---