1

WhenGeneticsChallengesaRacist’sIdentity:GeneticAncestryTestingamongWhiteNationalistsAaronPanofskyandJoanDonovan,UCLAAbstractThispaperconsiderstheemergenceofnewformsofrace-makingusingaqualitativeanalysisofonlinediscussionsofindividuals’geneticancestrytest(GAT)resultsonthewhitenationalistwebsiteStormfront.Seekinggeneticconfirmationofpersonalidentities,whitenationalistsoftenconfrontinformationtheyconsiderevidenceofnon-whiteornon-Europeanancestry.Despitetheiressentialistviewsofrace,muchlessthanusingtheinformationtopoliceindividuals’membership,postersexpendconsiderableenergytorepairidentitiesbyrejectingorreinterpretingGATresults.Simultaneously,however,StormfrontpostersusetheparticularrelationshipsmadevisiblebyGATstore-imaginethecollectiveboundariesandconstitutionofwhitenationalism.Bricoleurswithgeneticknowledge,whitenationalistsusea“racialrealist”interpretiveframeworkthatdepartsfromcanonsofgeneticsciencebutcannotbedismissedsimplyasignorant.

Introduction

Geneticancestrytests(GATs)aremarketedasatoolforbetterself-knowledge.

Purportingtorevealaspectsofidentityandrelatednessoftenunavailableintraditional

genealogicalrecords,materialspromotingGATsadvertisethecapacitytorevealone’s

genetictiestoethnicgroups,ancientpopulationsandhistoricalmigrations,andeven

famoushistoricalfigures.Butthisopportunityto“knowthyself”cancomewithsignificant

risks.

CraigCobbhadgainedpublicnotorietyandcultstatusamongwhitesupremacists

forhiseffortstobuyuppropertyinLeith,ND,takeoverthelocalgovernment,andestablish

awhitesupremacistenclave.In2013,CobbwasinvitedonTheTrishaShow,adaytimetalk

show,todebatetheseefforts.AnotherguestontheshowyelledatCobb,“Youhavethe

bloodofnegroesinyourbodyrightnow!Youarenot100%white!”AndCobbaccepteda

challengetotakeaGAT.SeveralmonthslaterCobbreturnedtotheshowonlytobelaughed

offthestageasproducersrevealedhimtohave86%Europeanand14%Africanancestry.

2

EvenasCobb’seffortstotakeoverLeithwerefailing,andhewasfacingterrorism

chargesforpointingagunattownspeople,hewasaimingtorecuperatehispublicwhite

identity.CobbhadhisDNAretested,gainedlayexpertisetodebatethescience,andwrotea

lengthyessayinMarch2015criticizingthemethodsofTheTrishaShow’sGAT,asserting

thesuperiorityofanAncestry.comtestwhichdeclaredhisancestrytobeoverwhelmingly

European.HedenouncedtheinitialcompanyDNASolutionsaspartofaJewishconspiracy

tospread“junkscience”whose“intentistodefame,confuseandderacinateyoungwhites

onamasslevel—especiallymales”(Cobb,2015).WhitenationalistresponsestoCobbwere

varied:Somemockedandtrolledhim,butothersacceptedhisexonerationandoffered

congratulations(Cobb,2015).

Cobb’sperhapsaccidentalengagementwithGATisnotanisolatedoccasion.

JournalistshavenotedthatwhitenationalistsandmembersoftheemergentAlt-Righthave

eagerlydiscussedGATandadvocatedtheiruseinonlineforums(Reeve2016,Zhang2016).

Reeve(2016)hasnotedaspiritofironicprovocationamongAlt-Rightusersasthey,for

example,challengeeachothertouseaGATtoprovetheyaren’tsecretmembersofthe

“JewishInternetDefenseForce”orseektoexplainEuropeancivilizationaslinkedtotraces

ofNeanderthalgeneswhichGATscanreveal.

TheCobbexampleputsonparademanyofthekeyissuesandmisconceptionsofthe

relationshipbetweenwhitenationalismandGATs.First,theinitialchallengedemonstrated

acommonassumptionthatGATandtruegeneticscienceaboutracewillputwhite

nationalistsintheirplace.Afterall,hasn’tgenetics(togetherwithanthropology,sociology,

andhistory)hasdemonstratedthebiologicalincoherenceofrace?Hasn’titdemonstrated

thatallhumanstracetheiroriginstoacommonAfricanancestor?Andhasn’tit

3

demonstratedthat“pure”populationsdon’texist?Thisepisodealsoseemstodramatize

theuniquevulnerabilityofwhitenationaliststothistechnologygiventheirideological

commitmentstothepurityandsuperiorityofthewhiterace.Andatleasttheinitialpartof

thestorysuggeststhatwhitenationalistsareignorant,anti-science,andcanthusbe

ridiculedanddismissed.ButCobb’ssecondchapterbeginstotroublethisaccountashere-

engagesGATsandfindsdataandinterpretationsofthescience(andthetestingcompanies)

thatconfirmhisideasofwhiteness.Cobbthusdemonstrateshiswillingnesstotakegenetic

scienceseriouslyandtomakeitconfirmatleastsomeideasaboutwhitenationalist

identity.

ThepurposeofthispaperistoengagetheuseofGATsbywhitenationalistsmore

systematically.Weuseauniquedatasetfromthewhitenationalistonlinebulletinboard

Stormfrontcomprisedofdiscussionthreadswhereuserspostanddiscusstheresultsof

geneticancestrytests.Weasktwomainquestions1)Howdoracists/whitenationalists

understandGATandinterpretthemviz-a-viztheiridentity?2)Howarewhitenationalists’

ideasaffectedbyGAT?Or,moreprecisely,howdoGATsencouragethemtodebatethe

boundariesandconstitutionoftheirgroupandpracticesofmembers?

ThenextsectionmotivatesthesequestionsbyidentifyingGATuseamongwhite

nationalistsasacrucialsiteforrace-makingagency,whichwecalltheontological

choreographyofrace.ThenweexplainhowGATswork,reviewrecentworkaboutthem

viz.identities,anddescribeourdata.Theempiricalpartofourpaperisorganizedbya

“decisiontree”thatillustratestherangeofwhitenationalists’responsesto“good”and“bad

news”postsaboutGATrevelations.Thebulkofthepaperdescribeswhitenationalists’

repairstrategiesforbadnews,butalsohowsomeseektoreimaginewhitenationalismin

4

termsrelationshipsGATmakevisible.Weconcludebyconsideringtheconnectionof

technologywithracialcognitionandimplicationsforthepoliticsandethicsofpopulation

science.

BackgroundSignificanceofthestudy

Geneticancestrytestsarealocusofwhatwemightcall,followingThompson

(2005),theontologicalchoreographyofrace.ForThompson,theassistedreproductive

technologyclinicwasasitewhereformerlyseparatemattersoflaw,property,rights,

sexuality,finance,kinship,emotion,andtechnologybecameentangledandtransformed

intoanewontologicalchoreographyofparenthood.Thoughcertainlylessconcentrated

andimbricatedthantheARTclinic,mattersofgenetics,technology,marketing,population,

identity,socialparticipation,andpoliticalmovementarebeingputintonewrelationships

withGAT.

OnepartofthisnewchoreographyconcernswhatDuster(2006)calledthe

“molecularreinscriptionofrace.”Scholarshaveshownthatacombinationofnew

technologiesandpoliticalideologiesofmulticulturalinclusion(ratherthananearlier

generation’swhitesupremacy)haveledtothestabilizationofraceandethnicityas

molecularandgenetic(asopposedtoconstructedandhistorical)concepts,promoted

effortstomapdiversityamonggroups,andfacilitatedgeneticcomparisonsofhealthand

othertraits(Benjamin2013,Epstein2007,FujimuraandRajagopalan2011,Fullwiley

2008,PanofskyandBliss2017).

Whathappensbeyondthecontextoflabsandbiomedicalinstitutionswhen

molecularlyreinscribedracegetsintothepublic?Onelineofresearchemphasizesthe

hardeningracialessentialismandsupremacistpolitics.Researchershaveshownthatpublic

5

opinionisshiftingtowardincreasinglygeneticessentialistviewsofrace,genetic

explanationsforracialdifferences,andlessenedsupportforameliorativesocialpolicy

(Phelan,LinkandFeldman2013,Shostaketal.2009).ExperiencewithGATseemsto

exacerbatetheseviews(Phelanetal.2014).TallBear(2013)hasemphasizedhowGATthat

purporttorepresentindividuals’NativeAmericanancestryenableattacksontribal

sovereigntyovermembershipandthesensethatnon-Nativesandscientistshavearightto

NativeAmericans’DNAandtheirhistory.

Asecondlineofresearcharguesthatcontemporarygeneticshascreatedastateof

ambiguityaroundthestatusofrace.Rose(2007)arguesthatunlikeearliererastoday’s

geneticsciencehaseschewedassumptionsaboutracialpurityandhierarchyinexchange

fordeepexplorationsofhumandiversity,andasaresultithashelpedreplaceeugenicor

quasi-eugenicwhitesupremaciststatepolicieswithaneoliberalpoliticsofdiversity.And

Hochschieldetal.(2012)havearguedthatpopulationgeneticsandthewideavailabilityof

GAThavehelpeddestabilizetheoldU.S.racialorder.Ontheonehandithasunmoored

bothanchorsofracialpoliticaldebate—thatraceisapuresocialconstructionandthat

racesaregeneticallydistinct.Ontheotherhand,ithasmaderacialclassificationsand

individualassignmentsdifficultthusdestabilizingmedical,criminological,andother

institutionaldriversofracialpoliticalstability.

Thoughthesetwolinesofresearchreachseeminglyopposedconclusions,theyare

unifiedbytheideathatpopulationgenetics(andGAT)willinfluenceracialpoliticseither

byhardeningpreexistingprejudicesanddivisionsorbydisruptingthoseprejudicesby

underminingthecategoriesuponwhichthey’rebuilt.ButThompson(2005)showedhow

thecruxofontologicalchoreographywasthecreationofnewformsofagencyirreducibleto

6

existingsocialandpoliticalforms.Nelson’s(2016)workgoesfurthestinaddressingthe

ontologicalchoreographyofracebyshowinghowGATandnewformsofblackpolitical

agencyhavebeencoproduced.Indeed,theGATtechnologywasfirstinventedinaneffortto

establishtheAfricanancestryofbodiesuncoveredinanunknownpotters’fieldinNew

YorkCityduringconstructionin1991.GATwouldbeinstrumentalinestablishingthissite

astheAfricanBurialGroundNationalMonumentin2006.Nelsonalsotrackshowblack

peoplehavetriedtouseGATtoreconstructfamilyhistoriesseveredbyslavery,tobuild

politicalandeconomicaffiliationstoAfricancountries,andtoseekslaveryreparations,

unsuccessfullytodate.

ThecurrentarticleengagesGATintheontologicalchoreographyofracefroma

differentdirection.Insteadoffocusing,ashaspreviouswork,ontheimplicationsofGATfor

peopleofcolorwefocusontheimplicationsfortheirantagonistsinthewhitenationalist

movement.Whitenationalists’usesofGATarethecameraobscuratoNelson’scase,where

whitesupremacistsseekanobjectivevisionofrace,whilealsodoubtingtheprocessand

methodsofscience.Itisanexampleofbad“biosociality”(Rabinow1996)thatisanother

crucialsitewheretheontologicalchoreographyofraceisbeingdanced.Aswewillshow,

manywhitenationalistsimagineGATasatooltoestablishwhitebonafides,findoutthatit

canproduceseriousindividualandcollectiveidentityproblems,andhavebegunto

rearticulatewhitenationalisminitsterms.

Itisimportant,asscholarsofwhitenessremindus,nottoreproducethe

“invisibility”ofwhitenessinourscholarshipbyignoringit(ZuberiandBonilla-Silva2008).

Andwhitenationalismisakeysitewherewhitenessbecomesespeciallyvisibleandwhere

peoplearecommittedtoarticulatingit,burnishingit,andconfrontingitsproblems.

7

Furthermore,whitenationalismhasbecomeincreasinglyimportantatthispolitical

moment.Neverasmarginalaschampionsofliberal,tolerantsocietywouldliketoimagine,

whitenationalismhasplayedanincreasinglyprominentroleinAmericanpoliticaland

sociallifewiththevocalassociationthey’vehadwithDonaldTrump’spresidencyandthe

contributiontheyaresaidtohavemadetohiselection.Whitenationalismisthus

theoreticallyimportantinunderstandingGATintheontologicalchoreographyofraceand

thisismultipliedbyitsgrowingdemographicandpoliticalimportanceaswell.

GATfunctionsandshortcomingsItisworthturningforamomenttohowGATworkandwhatsomeofthecritical

commentaryhasbeen.Therearetwobasictechnologiesinplay.Thefirst,usingautosomal

DNA,comparesvariationacrossanindividual’sgenometovariationwithinasetofpre-

definedreferencepopulations.Throughastatisticalprocesspartsoftheindividual’s

genomeareinferredtoderivefromthepopulationstowhichtheyaremostsimilar.The

companytheninformstheindividualthatherorhisancestryisX%population1,Y%

population2,Z%population3,etc.Thepopulationsaredeterminedbythecompany’s

referencesamplesandmightbedefinedracially/continentally,ethnically,intermsof

modernnationstates,etc.

ThesecondtechnologyusesMitochondrialDNA(MtDNA)whichispasseddirectly

frommotherstochildren,andY-ChromosomeDNAwhichispasseddirectlyfromfathersto

sons.DNAcollectsmutationsataslow,clocklikerate,butbecauseYandMtDNAdon’t

recombinewheninherited,thesemutationscanbeunderstoodasbranchingpointsintrees

ofhumanancestry.Byassessingthedistributionofsetsofthesemutations(called

haplotypes)incurrenthumanpopulations,geneticanthropologistshavebeenabletotrace

historicalrelationshipsandmigrationpatternsamongthem,andalsotoshowtheultimate

8

commonancestrywithinthelast100-200thousandyearsofallmodernhumansto

individualsineastAfrica.InGATs,companiescanidentifythehaplogroupinawoman’s

MtDNAtoidentifyhermaternallineageorinaman’sYorMtDNAtoidentifyhispaternal

andmaternallineages.Anindividual’slineagescanthenbedescribedintermsofcurrent

populationsthatsharethem,andinferencescanbemadeaboutthehistoricaloriginsof

anyone’smaternallineoraman’spaternalline.

ObserversofGATshaveofferedseverallinesofcritique(Bolnicketal.2007,Leeet

al.2009).TheGATssolddirectlytoconsumerstakeastheirstartingpointgeneticassays,

priorfindings,datasets,andstatisticalstrategiescommontohumanpopulationgenetics

andgeneticanthropology.Butthedozensofprivatecompaniesthatmarketthesetests

eachusetheirownpanelsofDNAmarkers,referencegroups,databases,statistical

algorithms,andinformationcommunicationstrategies,mostofwhichareregardedas

tradesecrets(Royaletal.2010).Thustheytradeontheauthorityofsciencebutdonot

adheretoscientificstandardsofopennessandaccountability,norarethereindustry

standards(Leeetal.2009).Therehasbeenanecdotalevidence,atleast,thatanindividual

mayobtaindifferentresultsfromdifferentcompaniesandthatcompaniesmaytunetheir

resultstoemphasizewhattheybelievecustomerswanttohear(Duster2011).

GATsembodyaparticularunderstandingofkinshipthatmakessomekindsof

relationshipsandhistoriesvisibleandothersobscure(Gannett2014,Nash2015,TallBear

2013).Forexample,thematernalandpaternallineages(madevisiblewithMtDNAandY-

chromosomehaplogroups)arebuttwoofthethousandsoflineagescomprisingone’s

background,andindividualswiththesamehaplogroupscanwidelyvaryintherestoftheir

ancestry(Emeryetal.2015).Also,GATsassumethatpresentdaypopulationscanbeused

9

toinferancientpatternsandrelationships.Theyoftenportraypopulationsmorecoherent

anddistinctivefromothersthanhistoryandevengeneticdatamightwarrant.Andthereis

noobjectivewaytodefineapopulationortodecidewhichindividualsshouldbepickedto

betheirgeneticrepresentatives(Bolnicketal.2007,Royaletal.2010).Thushow

individualsshouldinterpretGATsandwhatcanlegitimatelybeinferredfromthemisfar

fromclear(andmightvaryfromtesttotest),butresearchsuggeststhatinpracticeGATs

areinterpretedtoessentializeidentityandracebiologically(NordgrenandJuengst2009,

Phelanetal.2014,WagnerandWeiss2011).

GATandidentitiesThesefindingsmightsuggestthatGATwouldhaveanoverwhelminginfluenceon

individuals’identities,butresearchindicatestheimpactsarelimited.Nelson’s(2008)study

ofAfricanAmericans’queststofillingapsinpersonalgenealogyarecharacterizedby

“affiliativeself-fashioning.”Thatis,GATresultstendnottoundermineprioridentities,but

tendtobeincorporatedorrejecteddependingonhowtheyfitintopriorself-conceptions

oraspirationsforidentity.RothandIvemark(2017),inastudyinvolvingbeforeandafter

interviewsofaraciallydiversesetofGATusers,foundthatonlywhiteuserswhohadapre-

existingdesiretoburnishtheiridentitywithsomeracialorethnictieswerelikelyto

changeself-conceptionafterthetest.OtherresearchfoundthatasampleofLatinasand

AfricanAmericanwomentobelargelyunmovedbygeneticancestryinformationcollected

aspartofabroadergenetichealthstudyconsideringtheirancestrytobe“allmixedup

anyway”(XXX).

Butpossibleriskstopersonalidentityshouldnotbelimitedtothedisclosureof

personalinformation.TallBear(2013)highlightshowtheideathatGATmightbe

dispositiveofNativeAmericanancestryhasbeenusedtochallengethesovereigntyof

10

tribestosettheirownmembershiprules.AndDavis(2004)arguesthatthecontroversy

surroundingtheuseofgeneticteststodeterminewhetherThomasJeffersonhadfathered

childrenwithhisslaveSallyHemmingswasanimatedbythefactthatitriskedthe

narrativesandstatusofa“foundingfather”ofthenationandthus,inprinciple,all

Americans’identities.

GATandwhiteidentityResearchonGATandidentityhaslargelyfocusedonnon-whites,butwhataboutthe

implicationsforwhiteidentity?Scholarsofwhitenesshaveemphasizeditscontradictory

andcomplexcharacter—whitenessisin“crisis”evenasitmaintainspoliticalandcultural

hegemony(Hughey2012,Winant1997).Ontheonehandwhitenessisconceivedas

neutral,empty,theabsenceofrace.Alongtheselines,buildingonWaters(1990),Rothand

Ivemark(2017)explainthatGATmayofferwhitepeopleadditionalethnicoptionsintheir

questtocultivatecostless,“colorblind”formsofidentity.Forwhitesviewingethnicidentity

ascostlessandoptional(Waters1990),andunderstandingwhitenessasakindofidentity

deficit(Hughey2012),GATmayoffernewkindsofidentityoptions(seealsoWaters,

2014).

Butontheotherhand,asHarris(1993)hasargued,whitenesshasbeeninscribedin

Americancultureandinstitutionsasaformofproperty.Predicatedonracialpurityand

alwaysatriskofbeing“devalued,”whitenessisanimatedbyprocessesofexclusion.And

thisactiveandvaluablebutendangeredformofwhitenessiswhatwhitenationalists

activelypromoteanddefend(Willoughby-Herard,2015).

GATmaythuspresentasetofdilemmasforwhitenationalists.Ontheonehand,

GATmaybeavaluabletoolforthemtomakeracevisible,clearlydiscloseitsheritableand

biologicalcomponents,anddrawboundariesaroundwhiteness.CommononStormfront,

11

thewhitenationalistonlinemessageboarduponwhichwefocus,arediscussionsofwho

countsaswhiteandwhatkindsofpeoplearepermissiblesexualpartners;maybeGAT

couldresolvesomeofthesequestions.Whitenationalismisalsocloselyassociatedwith

anti-Semitism,andthusGATs,whichoftencalloutJewishethnicities(e.g.,Ashkenazi),may

allowthemtoidentifyhiddenJewishor(other)non-Whiteidentity.1

Ontheotherhand,GATsareusedbymanywhitesinthehopesoffindinghidden

non-whiteancestrytoburnishtheiridentities(RothandIvemark2017),whichis

antitheticaltowhitenationalists’notionsofwhitepride.However,whitesseekingout

racializedidentitiesrevealhowGATsreproducedifferentcolonizinglogics,wherethe

powertoselectivelyself-identifythroughgenotypeisnotasstigmatizedasphenotypical

markersofrace.Morecrucially,GATsaredesignedtorevealhumanvariationandgenetic

heterogeneity(Royaletal.2010),andMtDNAwasthedecisiveevidenceinestablishingthat

allhumanracessharecommonancestry(Cann,StonekingandWilson1987).GATmaythus

blurboundariesofwhitenessandunsettleindividuals’claimstomembership.

Furthermore,GAT,whichmaybeusedtoidentifydistinctionswithinraces—e.g.,peoples

withinEurope,mayenergizeasimmeringdebatewithinwhitenationalismbetweenthose

whoemphasizecommonwhitenessandthosefocusedonthehierarchyofnationswithin

Europe(SimpsonandDruxes2015).

Theseliteraturesprovideuswithsomegeneralquestionsasweanalyzehowwhite

nationalistsuseGAT.AretherespecialwaysthatdifferentgroupsengageGAT?Dowhite

nationalistsengageGATinwaysanalogoustonon-whites?Forexample,dotheyexhibitthe

affiliativeself-fashioningthatNelson(2008)describesascharacteristicofAfrican

1OnJews’lateandproblematicadmissionintowhiteness,seeBrodkin(1998).

12

Americanresponses?Furthermore,ifwhitenessisinastateofpermanentcrisis,andif

whitenationalismispredicatedonanessentialistunderstandingofraceandracial

difference,doesGATexacerbatethesenseofcrisisorhelpresolveit?IfmanyNative

AmericansexperienceGATasanassaultontheiridentityandmembershipsovereignty,do

whitenationalistsexperiencesomethingsimilar?

DataandMethodsTostudytheinterpretationofGATsbywhitenationalists,weexaminedpostsfrom

Stormfront.org,aprominentonlinediscussionforumforwhitesonly(Daniels2009).We

choseStormfrontasourobjectofanalysisbecauseofitslonghistoryasapubliclyavailable

resourceforwhitenationalistsanditsovertmessagingasawhitepowermovement.Aswe

willshow,Stormfrontisnotonlyafreespacefordiscussionofwhitenationalism,butalso

advocatesforwhiteidentitypoliticsasaframeformobilizingwhattheycall“thewhite

minority.”Inthissection,weprovideahistoryofStormfrontasasocialmovementonline

communityandhighlighttheroleStormfrontplaysinframingwhiteidentitypolitics.We

concludebydescribingoursamplingstrategyandpresentthedescriptiveanalyticsofour

dataset.

StormfrontasaSocialMovementOnlineCommunityOnMarch27,1995,DonBlack,aformerGrandWizardoftheKuKluxKlan,launched

Stormfront(Abel,1998).Blackwaseducatedincomputerprogramingwhileinprisonfor

attemptinganarmedinvasionofDominicain1981.Uponleavingprison,heworkedasa

webdesigner,specializingindatabasesanddiscussionboardsforclientsaroundthe

country.Blacksawpotentialinemergingtechnologiessuchasblackboardsystemsand

websitediscussionboardsforreinvigoratinginterestinthewhitenationalistmovement.In

hisestimation,Stormfrontwouldprovidewhitesaplaceforfreeandopendiscussionsof

13

race,politics,andculture.BecauseStormfrontwasoneofthefirstwebsitesdedicatedto

racialhateanddiscrimination,themessageboardservesasanarchivalandhistorical

resourceofwhitenationalistthoughtanddiscussion,withnearlyonemillionarchived

threadsandovertwelvemillionpostsby325,000ormoremembers.2

WhatmadeStormfrontdifferentfromotherwhitesupremacists’siteswasits

adoptionofweb2.0technology,whichallowedformemberparticipationonforumsand

blogs.In2002,Blackaddedanewfeatureonthesite,whereheandhismentorDavidDuke,

aformerKKKleaderandcongressman,co-hostedaweeklywebradioshow(Daniels,2009:

104).TheinclusionofthesefeaturesledtodebatesastowhetherStormfrontshouldbe

consideredamovementuntoitselforanonlinecommunityamongotherwhitenationalist

groups(HaraandEstrada2003;Daniels2009;Carenetal.2012).HaraandEstrada(2003)

comparethefeaturesofStormfronttoMoveOn.org,aleftistpoliticalorganizationwho

focusesonpoliticalcampaignsthroughdonationdrivesandonlinepetitions.Theyargue

thatStormfrontisanineffectualpoliticalorganizationwithinthewhitenationalist

movementbecausetheydonotactivelyengageinpoliticalcampaigns.Daniels(2009:49;

106)statesthatStormfrontshouldbedefinedasa“virtualcommunity”ratherthanasocial

movementbecauseitisunitedbyaparticularracializedworldview,wheretherearefew

opportunitiesforcoordinationofofflineactivities.

ThecommunityofStormfrontismaintainedthroughthetechnologicalfeaturesof

thewebsiteitself,wherethereisaconsistentmoderationofposts,restrictionofspamming

andtrolling,andtopicalforumsensureorderforlengthydiscussions.Carenetal.(2012)

2StatisticsweregatheredfromtheStormfrontwebpage’sself-reportinganddoesnotincludeinformationonlurkers(i.e.thosethatvisitbutdonotsignintoanaccount):https://www.stormfront.org/forum/(accessed,May30,2017).

14

describeStormfrontasa“socialmovementonlinecommunity,”wherecollectiveidentityis

emphasizedovercollectiveaction.Carenetal.(2012)assertthatSMOCsareunliketypical

socialmovementcommunitiesbecausetheyaregeographicallydispersed,canscale

membershiprapidlyasneeded,andallowforanonymity.Additionally,Burisetal.(2000:

232)writewithreferencetoskinheads,“theInternetholdsaspecialattractionforthosein

searchofa"virtual"communitytocompensateforthelackofacriticalmassintheirown

townorcountry.”

InassessingthesizeofStormfront,Carenetal.(2012)estimatedthatin2010there

werebetweenfourandfivemillionpageviewspermonth.WiththefocusontheAmerican

presidentialelectionfromOctoberthroughDecember2016,Stormfrontloggedover17

millionpageviews.Thisincreaseinconsumptionovertheelectioncycleindicatesnotonly

agrowingcuriosityaboutwhitenationalism,butalsomoreinterestoverallindiscussions

aboutwhiteidentityanditspoliticalramifications.SinceDaniels(2009)andCarenetal.’s

(2012)publications,muchhaschangedaboutonlinecoordinationofsocialmovements,

wherethestrategicleveragingofsocialmediacoupledwithbackchannelcommunication

allowsmovementstoreachnewaudiencesforrecruitmentandmobilization(Donovan

2016).Therefore,wedefineStormfrontassocialmovementonlinecommunitylinkedwith

amuchbroaderwhitenationalistsocialmovement,whereStormfrontservesasanintegral

forumfordiscussionsofwhitenationalismandmeaning-makingaboutwhiteidentity.We

nowturntodescribinghowStormfrontframeswhiteidentitypolitics.

WhiteIdentityonStormfrontWhileStormfronthasnotoverhauleditstechnicalinterfacegreatly,ithaschanged

thedescription,shiftingfromamilitantpoliticalpositiontoonewheretheyemphasizethe

needforthe“whiteminority”togetorganized.Throughouttheendofthe1990s,

15

Stormfront’sdescriptionread:"Stormfrontisaresourceforthosecourageousmenand

womenfightingtopreservetheirWhiteWesternculture,ideals,andfreedomofspeechand

association--aforumforplanningstrategiesandformingpoliticalandsocialgroupsto

ensurevictory."GuidedbyDonBlack’smilitantvision,Stormfrontwasintendedtobean

organizingspaceforawhitenationalistsocialmovement,withtendenciestowardswhite

supremacy.OvertimeStormfrontrevisedthiscombativeintroductionandnowdescribes

themselvessimilartootheridentity-basedmovements,theywrite,“Weareacommunityof

racialrealistsandidealists.WeareWhiteNationalistswhosupporttruediversityanda

homelandforallpeoples.Thousandsoforganizationspromotetheinterests,valuesand

heritageofnon-Whiteminorities.Wepromoteours.Wearethevoiceofthenew,embattled

Whiteminority!”

Thisshiftinlanguagerevealshowleftistmovementsthatcreatedpoliticaland

culturalchangesthroughmobilizingacollectiveidentity(suchasfeminist,LGBTQ,and

Blackpowermovements)havegreatlyinfluencedthewaysinwhichtheUSwhite

nationalistmovementconceptualizeswhiteidentity.Moreover,byadoptinganidentity-

basedapproach,whitenationalistsdifferentiatethemselvesfromwhitesupremacists,who

seektoadvanceanextremistplanforworldwidedomination.Inthisway,whiteidentity

movementsrelyona“racialrealist”perspective,whichclaimsraceisbiologically

determined(ratherthansociallyconstructed),astateofaffairsthatjustifiestheseparation

ofracesandnationsasamatterofheritage,andbiologicalandculturalpreservation.

Becausewhitenationalistsareconcernedwithissuesofrace,biology,andnationhood,

examiningStormfrontmembers’discussionsofGATexplainshowwhitenationalistsuse

16

thesetestsasmarkersofwhiteidentity,especiallythoseinsearchofEuropean,non-Jewish,

roots.

AsaresultofitsWeb2.0interface,itslongevityonline,andrespectedstatuswithin

thewhitenationalistmovement,Stormfrontisanexemplaryplacetostudytohowwhite

nationalistsuseGATtestsintheformationofwhiteidentitypolitics.Whiletherearenow

manyplaceswhereindividualscandiscussGATtestsonline,suchasmessageboardslike

RedditorinFacebookgroups,ourstudyspecificallyaddresseshowwhitenationalistsare

usinggeneticstothinkaboutracialcategoriesandhowwhitenationalistsmakeclaims

aboutwhiteidentitiesusingscientificevidence.Therefore,Stormfrontisunlikeother

websitesorsocialmediabecausethereisnoambiguityinitspresentationormessagingas

awhitenationalistonlinecommunityinvestedinwhiteidentitypoliticsaboveallelse.

OverviewofDataAnalysisMuchofthediscussiononStormfrontrelatedtogeneticstakesplaceinthe“Science

andTechnology”forum.Carenetal.(2012)foundthatfewforumsholdontonewmembers

forlongperiodsoftime,but27%ofuserswhofirstpostinScienceandTechnologywere

stillpostingoverayearlater.Forourstudy,wecompiledadatabaseofseventythreads,

whichwerechosenbasedonthethreadcontainingatleastoneinstanceofamember

postingtheirGATresults.Withintheseseventythreads,weexamined3,070poststhat

includedbothGATresultsandtheensuingdiscussions(SeeAppendix).Amongthe70

threads,in639postsusersdescribedtheirgenealogy,where153postswereresultsfrom

identifiabledirect-to-consumertestingcompanies.OfthesepostswhereGATconsumers

revealedtheirresultsandtheirpersonalreactions,wecodedthemaccordingtothetypeof

testandreactionbytheconsumer.

[Table1abouthere]

17

[Table2abouthere]

Theremaining2,341postsinoursampleweremadeinthediscussionsthat

emergedwithinthreads.Responsestotestresultsrangedfromshameandexclusionto

sympathyandunderstanding.Moreover,responsestosurprisingresultsprompted

discussionsofscientificlegitimacy,multiculturalconspiracies,andracialpurity.Fromthese

responses,wecreatedaflowchartordecisiontree(SeeFigure1)thatmapstherangeof

rationalizationsusedbywhitenationaliststointerpretGATresults.Belowistherangeof

communitymemberreactionstoanothermemberrevealingtheirGATtestresultsandthe

numberofcodeapplications.Somepostsinvolvedmultiplereactions,sothereisadegree

ofoverlapbetweenthesecategories.Wepresentthisinformationhereasageneral

overviewoftherangeofmembers’reactionsandtohighlightthepreponderanceof

responseswheremembersengagedthecommunityusingeducationalandscientific

explanations.

[Table3abouthere]

Becauseourstudyassesseshowwhitenationalistsusethetheories,methodsand

toolsofsciencetosupporttheirracistbeliefs,weexaminedcloselymembersattemptsto

educateeachother.Amongthe1,260poststhatwerecodedwith“providesaneducational

orascientificexplanation,”wedevelopedaseriesofsub-codestodrawoutwhatkindsof

knowledgeandexplanationscommunitymemberswererelyingontounderstandscience

andgenetics.Ofthese1,260posts,manyinvolveanattempttoeducatethecommunity

aboutgenetics,explainwhatitmeanstobewhite,andrecommendspecifictextsforfurther

education.

18

[Table4abouthere]

WhatisperhapsmostnoteworthyamongthecodesreportedinTables3and4,is

thatdespitetheracialessentialiststartingpointofmostStormfrontposters,responses

aimingatshamingordiscreditingindividualsas“notwhite”upontherevelationof“bad

news”aresurprisinglyinfrequentrelativetothewiderangeofothertypesofresponses.It

istowardthiswidevariationthatwenowturn.

Findings

HereweanalyzedifferentwaysthatStormfrontusersposttheirGATresults,react

tothepostsofothers,andalsogenerallydebatethemeaningofGAT.Weinductively

generatedaclassificationschemeofthedifferentresponses,whichwehaveportrayedasa

“decisiontree”(Figure1).

[Figure1abouthere]Intheanalysisbelow,wewillprogressthroughthedifferentpossibleresponses

whicharerepresentedbythedifferentsquaresonthefigure.Westartbyconsideringthe

GATresultsthatpostersconsider“goodnews”regardingtheiridentities(redsquares).

Thenweturntothemoreinterestingcaseswherepostersrevealresultsthattheyconsider

“badnews”inthatsomeproportionofnon-whiteorquestionableancestryisrevealed

(yellowsquaresandsubsequentbranches).FirstweconsidercaseswhereStormfront

respondersworktorepairtheposter’s“spoiledidentity”(Goffman1963),eitherby

rejectingGATasabasisofknowledgeaboutidentity(purplesquares)orengagingina

scientificreinterpretationoftheresultstominimizethedamagingresults(greensquares).

ThesecasesallinvolvewaysofdiscreditingorminimizingtheimpactofGAT,butweturn

nexttoexampleswhereStormfrontmembersengagethese“badnews”postsbyaccepting

19

GATresults(graysquares).Onesetoftheseincludesboundaryworktoexpelposterswith

spoiledidentities,butthesecondsetcontainsexamplesofwaysthatStormfrontposters

areusingGATtorethinktheboundariesofwhitenessandtheprojectofwhitenationalism.

“Goodnews”fromGATOfthe153postswherespecificGATresultswererevealed,53ofthemwere

StormfrontmemberspostingsomekindofgoodnewsabouttheirGATs—thatisresults

thattheyinterpretedasconfirmingorenhancingtheirwhiteidentitybonafides.Manyof

thesewereseenasstrictlyconfirmatory:

Iused23andme.Itcameup100%European.MostlyIrishandBritishwithsomeScandinavian.PrettymuchwhatIexpectedbutitwasgoodtogetitconfirmed.(AltRightyThen,09-28-2016)

IdidmyY-67andAutosomalteststhroughFamilyTreeDNA.AllitdidwasconfirmmyancestorswerewesternEuropean;primarilyEngland,WalesandScotland.IalreadyhadapaperworktrailbeforetheDNAtestssothetestwasaccurateforme.(jbgramps07-10-2016)

Thesepostersarepleasedbutnotsurprisedbyresultsthatconfirmwhattheyalready

believedtobetrueabouttheirancestralorigins.

Butforotherposters,thegoodnewswentfurtherastheyidentifiedunknown

componentsoftheirancestrythatconfirmedtheirwhiteidentitiesinnewways.For

example,oneposterwasthrilledwiththe“prettydamnpureblood:D”(Sloth07-11-2010)

thattestingrevealed.Slothwassurprisedthat“eventhoughimborninFinlandIdonthave

muchrootsinhere.Thebiggest%wasfromIceland,thenIreland,thenScotland,Then

Norway,SwedenandFI[nland]lastbutnotleast.”Intriguedbythe“Celtic”result,Sloth

mused“HowcanIhavesomeCelticrootsifIhaveBLONDEhair,notred.”Butthisresultwas

consideredinteresting,notdiscrediting,andSlothplannedtogetaThor’shammertattoo

andvisitIcelandduetothisnewknowledge.

20

Thegoodnewscanalsoallayfearsaboutone’sidentity.Forexample,Shatzie(08-

23-2013)hadpursuedtestingoutofaconcernthat“theirmightbeamericanindianorjew

inthemixbecauseItanreallyeasily”butwasrelievedbytheresults:

67%Britishisles18%Balkan15%Scandinavian…100%white!HURRAY!Goodnewspostsgenerallyfailtodrawresponses,perhapsbecausetheyrarelypose

aquestion.Occasionallygoodnewsmightdrawcongratulationsfromaposter’svirtual

friendsandsometimesascoffingresponsefromsomeonecriticalofthedecisiontosend

one’sDNAtocompaniesthatsomeStormfrontpostersbelievearepartsofaJewish

conspiracy,apointwereturntoinamoment.Overall,GATsseemtobeworthlittle

discussionsolongastheydelivergoodnews.Butbadnewspostsareanotherstory.

Rejecting“badnews”fromGATAsubstantial,perhapssurprising,numberofpostsrelatesomekindofbadnews

revealedbyGAT.Itisperhapssomewhatsurprisingthatposterswouldrevealbadnews—

evenwiththequasi-anonymityoftheonlinehandle,butsuchrevealsoftensolicitadvice

abouthowtointerpretorcopewiththeinformation.Suchpostsoftenelicitlongseriesof

responsessomeofwhicharesupportiveandothersofwhichcanbedismissiveorcruel—

aboutthesemorebelow.WehaveidentifiedtwobasicwaysthatStormfrontpostersseekto

containidentity-damagingGATresults.

RejectingGATThefirstoftheseistorejectGATasabasisofknowledgeaboutanindividual’s

ancestryorracialidentity.Oneversionofthisrejectionistochampiontraditional

genealogicalmethodsinstead.Forexample,inresponsetoaresultthatcontradictedthe

poster’sfamilyhistory,onepostingwas:

21

Myadviceistotrustyourownfamilytreegenealogyresearchandwhatyourgrandparentshavetoldyou,beforetrustingaDNAtest.Thesecompaniesarequiteliberalaboutensuringeverywhitepersongetsalittlesprinklingofnon-whiteDNA(weknowwhoownsandrunsthesecompanies).Rather,thesetestscanbeusedtoaffirmwhatyouknowaboutyourownEuropeanancestralgroupings,deeporigins,etc. It'salsoveryunlikelyforwhitestobemixediftheirgenealogyshowsallEuropeanancestors5ormoregenerationsback.Rampantracemixingwasn'tgoingonbackthenthewayitistoday.(Bellatrix06-21-2015)

GenealogicalresearchisapopularpursuitamongStormfrontpostersandtheyfrequently

describeitasthebestwaytolearnaboutone’sidentity.Genealogyismorespecificabout

identity—linkingonetopeoplefromparticulargroupsandplacesratherthanvague

populationsfromsomeunclearhistoricalpast—butalsoitisundertheidentityseeker’s

control.

AsecondjustificationforrejectingGATresultsisthatraceorethnicityisdirectly

visible.Inresponsetoaposter’sdistressthatGATidentifiedJewishancestry,Gladiatrix

responds,“Iwouldn'tworryaboutit.Whenyoulookinthemirror,doyouseeajew?Ifnot,

you'regood”(05-26-2014).CatchTheInnocencemockedtheformoftheGATbypostinghis

own“testresults”:“Andthemirrortestresults:golden/reddishbeard,brightblue/green

eyeswithabeautifulyellowcircleandaWhitemansnose”(07-07-2015).Theideabehind

the“mirrortest”—aplayontheGATdatareveal(NelsonandHuang2011)—seemstobe

thatapartofatruewhitenationalistconsciousnessistheabilitytodiscernracedirectly;

or,moreprecisely,thatnon-whiteorJewishancestrywillleavevisibletracesthattherace-

consciouswillbeabletosee.Fromthisperspective,ifsomeonedoesnot“lookwhite”orif

theirappearanceleavesroomfordoubt,thenthatpersonisnotwhite.GATthusadds

nothing.

22

AthirdwaytorejectproblematicresultsistorejectGATthemselvesasproducedby

companieswhoseleadershaveananti-whitebias.Intheresponseabove,Bellatrixaccuses

companiesthatofferGATofhavingapro-multiculturalismbiasinwhichtheytrytoconfuse

whitesabouttheiridentitybyattributingtothemsomenon-whiteancestry.Otherslinkthis

biastoaspecificallyJewishconspiracyadvancedbyGATcompanies,inparticular

23andMe,whichtheybelieveareownedbyJews.3Forsome,theconspiracygoesdeeper:

IwouldbeinterestedintakingaDNAtesttoexploremyancestry,butonethingpreventsme.Thatisthefactthat23andMeisJewishcontrolledanditwouldnotbesurprisingifalltheothersaretoo…itISpossibletodevelopsyntheticdiseasedthatwillkillonlywhiteswitha100percentdeathrate....Ithink23andMemightbeacovertoperationtogetDNAtheJewscouldthenusetocreatebio-weaponsforuseagainstus.(ErikTheWhite10-15-2016quotingVolodyamyr)

FormanyStormfrontposters,onecandiscountGATresultsbecausetheputativelyJewish

companyownershipisinvestedinsowingracialdoubtandconfusionamongwhites.But

furthermore,oneshouldnotparticipateintestingbecauseitalsoempowersJewsand

governmentstosurveilandultimatelytoattackwhites.4Thoughcastinimplausibleanti-

Semiticandconspiracytheoryterms,thecritiqueheremirrorsthoseofGATcriticswho

havenotedthetechnologyisbetweenscienceandthemarketandlackinganobjective

standardcompaniesmaytellpeoplewhattheybelievetheywanttohear(Bolnicketal.

2007).

3Forafullarticulationofthispointonawhitenationalistblogsee,http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-jews-behind-23andme-and-family-tree-dna/(accessed,April252017).4NotallStormfrontpostersaccepttheextremeconspiracytheoriesaboutGAT:“Iamsorryifyouthinkitisanevilconspiracy.Thereiszeroevidencetosupportthat.EveryWhitepersonIknowwhohastakenanyoftheseautosomaltestscamebackasWhiteinsomeformortheother.Theywerenevertoldthattheyaremixed”(SaxonCelticPride09-17-2013).

23

TheStormfrontposterswhorejectthelegitimacyofGATdosobasedonthe

convictionthatpaperandpencilgenealogyandperceptiongroundedinracial-

consciousnessaresuperiorformsofknowledge.Furthermore,manybelieveGAT

companiestobebiased,seekingtoconfusewhites.Thecommonthreadhere(beyondthe

conspiracymindset)isadistrustofelitesandJewsandavalorizationoftoolsofknowledge

thatcanbecontrolledbyoneself.Indeedsomepostersbemoanthelackofa“racialist”run

GATcompany,andothersadvocatedownloadingone’sgeneticdata(whichsome

companiesallow),andtakingittositeslikeGEDMatch(https://www.gedmatch.com/)

whichtheybelieveofferamoredetailedandneutraldepictionofancestry.

ReinterpretingGATAsecondgeneralstrategyfordealingwith“badnews”GATresultsistoreinterpret

theresultswithinframeworksofgenetic,statistical,orhistoricalknowledgeinorderto

underminethemostdamaginginterpretations.HereGATsareunderstoodaslegitimatein

principal,butparticularresultsarebelievedtobeerroneous.Suchdiscussionsareusually

inresponsetoanoriginalposter’sworrieddescriptionofananomaly—apersonwho

“looks”whiteandbelieveshisorherancestryiswhite,butreceivesaGATresultwithsome

ancestryfromanon-whiteorJewishancestry.Andtheresponsesthataimatrepairtendto

beeducationalandreasoningthroughdifferentwaysofmakingtheanomalymakesense.

Themostcommonstrategyistochalklowlevelsofanomalousancestryto

“statisticalerror.”Postersoftenrespondthatancestrypercentagesinthelowsingledigits

arenotsignificantandcanbediscounted:“EverysingleWhitepersonIhavespokentowho

hastakenthistestendsupwithlessthan1percentofsomeobscureregionintheirDNA.

It'snotworthstressingover”(SaxonCelticPridequotedingreengoddess09-15-2013).

24

Othersputthethresholdofnon-concernatabout5%,sometimescitingtheinterpretative

guidelinespromulgatedbyGATcompaniesthemselves.

Butthereisalotofobsessingandquestioningaboutthesesmallportionsof“bad

news”ancestry,sotheyareclearlyconsidereddangerous.Oneindividualwrites,“Mine

says98%EuropeandIwillnotberevealingtheothersthatmakeeverythingaddupto

100%.IviewtherestasnoiseDNAthat'sprobablytherefrommanyhundredsofyearsago

duringconquestsbetweenEuropeandotherplaces”(greengoddess09-14-2013).Itis

“noise”sotheposterfeelsjustifiedinnotrevealingit(perhapstoavoiddrawingnegative

attention),butthenshegivesthenoiseanexplanationinhistoricalprocesses.Despite

assurancesoftheirinsignificance,lowpercentagescanbehardtoignore.Asoneposted:

Theyhadmeat5%[non-European]andtherestEuropeandecent,whetherit'slegitornotIdidthesmartthingandwentontheforumwheretheyraciallyprofilepeoplebytraitsandracefeaturesallthetime,theyclassifiedmeandsaidIlookedofGermanic,CeltstockandBorreby,Alpinelikewasthetrait.(Ghostofwar111907/31/2015)

Concernedaboutthegeneticresults,thisposterwenttoacrowdsourcingsitewherea

personcansubmithisorherpicturetoberatedbypeersforitswhitenessandwas

gratifiedthatthesuspiciousDNAwasatleastnotvisible.

Finally,tinypercentagesofnon-whitedatacanbeseenagainaspartofthe

multiculturalconspiracyof23andMeandotherGATcompaniestryingtosowconfusion

amongwhites:

EVERYsingleAmerican'sresultsthatIhaveseenALWAYShavethis0.1%non-whitegarbage….[resultsfrom23andmeare‘rigged’]fortheveryreasonandcauseoftryingtospreadmulticulturalismandmakewhitesthinkthattheyareraciallymixed…23andmehasbeencalledoutforit'snewmethodofdeterminingancestry,thiswhole0.1%or0.2%africanornativeamerican(orwhatevernonwhiteitmaybe)garbageis100%falsifiedandinaccurate.(Herja02-21-2014)

25

Thisposterdisputesthescientificbasisofdisclosingverysmallportionsofancestryand

thusattributesGATcompanies’disclosureoftheinformationashavinganti-white

motives.5

AmoresophisticatedstrategyforreinterpretingproblematicGATresultstobeless

damagingistopointoutsomeversionofcorrelationdoesnotequalcausationinthe

results.Forexample:

themainflawisthattheybaseyourresultsoncommondnasegments.For instanceifasignificantnumberofTurkshadacertainsegmentresultingfromtheGreekswhousedtolivethere,aGreektakingthetestmightcomeupaspartTurk,notbecausehehasTurkishancestrybutbecausesomeTurkshaveGreekancestry. Bingo.Thismayevenaccountforface-valueWhiteAmericanswhocomeupwithasmidgenofAmerindian.It'snotthattheWhitefolksnecessarilyhaveanInjunintheirwoodpile....it'sthatthebasepopulationofInjunsfromwhomtheyanalyzedthemarkershadsomeWhiteintheirs.(Skyrocket06-01-2014)

TheposterpointsoutthatGATcompaniesestimateanindividual’sancestrybycomparing

ittoareferencegroup.Butthatreferencegroupisdefinedbyfiatsincegeneticistsmust

generallysamplefromcontemporarypopulationsratherthanhistoricalpopulations

believedtobetheirorigins.Thisposter’scritique,thoughwithouttheracistovertones,

echoesthoseofacademiccriticsofGAT(Bolnicketal.2007)andisoneofthebasic

problemsthatpopulationgeneticistsdealwithintheirwork.

Otherversionsofthiscritiquearemadelessonlogicalgrounds,butintermsof

elaboratehistoricaltheoriesthataccountforthemixtureofwhiteorEuropeangeneswith

non-whiteornon-Europeanpopulations.Forinstance,oneposterunderstoodhis/her

ancestrytobeItalian,“However,theDNAtestsshowthatonbothsides,Ibelongto

5Logically,though,ifGATcompanieswereseekingtolieandconfusetheywoulddosobyskewingtheresultstoappearsignificantratherthannegligible.

26

haplogroupU5a1a,whichmeansallmyancestorscomefromNorthwesternEurope!”6A

responderexplainedtheresultintermsoftheheterogeneousmixofpeoplesconstituting

Italy:

It'snotreallyallthatsurprising,Italyisafairlynewcountryandbeforethattherewerequitedistinctregionstoit,itusedtobeCeltsandEtruscansintheNorth,GreeksinthesouthItalicsinthemiddleetcandlaterontheSouthbecametheKingdomofSicaly,alsoByzantineGreekoccupationhappenedinlargeportionsofit,intheCentralandNorthandtheSouthitpassedintothehandsofLombards,Franks,Goths,etc,soit'snotreallyallthatsurprisingthatyourancestryisfromNorthwesternEurope.(MaxVictory01-04-2008)

Inanotherexample,aposternotedalarmataGATidentifying“11%

PersianTurkishCaucasus”ancestry.FadingLightresponded,“theseareOLDstrainsofWhite

geneticmaterialthatturnupinoddplaces.RememberthatPersiawasaWHITEcivilization

tostartwith,andallofthatsurroundingareawasWhite,too,untiltheSemitescame”

(10/09/2012).Andinresponsetoapersonwhopostedasmallportionof“Senegal”

ancestry,FadingLightraged:

See,THISiswhyIdon'trecommendtheseteststopeople.DidtheybothertotellyouthattherewereWhitesinwhatisnowSenegalallthattimeago?No?Sotheyledyoutobelievethatyou'remixedeventhoughinallprobability,youaresimplyrelatedtosomeWhitefoolwholeftsomeofhisDNAwiththelocalsinwhatisnowSenegal.(07-01-2015)

Thus,anomalousresultsofcurrentStormfrontpostersaresometimesexplainedintermsof

deephistoriesofwhitenessincludingits‘heroic’conquests,‘tragic’incursionsofnon-white

populations,and‘foolish’mistakesofwhites.

Whatwehaveshownhereisastrategyofcopingwith“badnews”thatacceptsthe

realityandrelevanceofGATresultsbutattemptstoofferalternativeexplanationsthan

6Uncommentedonbyinterlocutorsistheoddreportingoftheresult:Thehaplogroupisonlyforthematernalline(andcouldn’tdescribe“bothsides”letalone“allmyancestors”)andmanycontemporarypopulationsaroundEuropeexhibititinvariousfrequencies.

27

thoseseeminglyonofferfromthetestingcompanies.Inthisframework,therepairstrategy

isnottorejectscientificorhistoricalknowledgebuttoeducateoneselftounderstandthe

constructionofGATresultsandtoexplainthoseresultsinalternateterms.Thisperspective

isoftensupplementedwithcounter-historicalknowledgethatemphasizeraceasthe

drivingforceinhistory.

AcceptingGATresultsthatdeliver“badnews”ThesectionsaboveconsideredwaysofrepairingidentitiesendangeredbyGAT“bad

news”thatworkedbyrejecting,displacing,orre-interpretingGATresultssoastominimize

theirimpact.Nowweturntoresponsesthatacceptthebadnews—firstontheindividual

levelandthenhowsomehavebegintothinkthroughtheimplicationsoftheresultsforthe

boundariesofwhitenationalismandtheoriesofrace.

OnoccasionsomeonewillpostGATresultsthathavebadnewsthatfarexceedsthe

thresholdofafewpercentofnon-Europeanancestry.Witnessthisexchange:

Orion2211-13-2014Hello,HasanyonereceivedtheirDNAresultfromsalivaDNAtest?Ireceivedmyresultstoday,andIam58%European,29%NativeAmericanand13%MiddleEastern.IamprettysureMiddleEasternisCaucasiantoo,aswellasEuropean,soitmeansIam71%Caucasian?…

Gargoyle 11-14-2014Lookslikeyouwon'tbeamemberhereanytimesoon.

Orion22 11-15-2014IamprettysureyouareNOT100%pureeither.GoodluckwithyourDNAtest,ifyouareNorthAmerican,youwillbesurprisedhowmuchNativeAmericanDNAyouhave.

TommyGunOrange 12-01-2014youareseriouslyretardedandignorantaboutgeneticstudies

…no,you'rejustjealousbecauseyouwanttobewhitebutyoucantandyouhatethefactmostwhiteamericansreallyare100%white

…itsnotourfaultyourancestorswerestupidfckingracemixersandracetraitors

28

don'tgetmadatusjustbecauseyou'restupiddirtydogandforyourinfo,thevastmajorityofgeneticstudiesandresultsshowthatyes,thetypicalwhiteAmericanis99%-100%white/European

…gotrollsomewhereelse,TheremustbeaLaRazawebsiteouttheresomewhere.you'dfeelmorewelcomeamongyourhalfbreedcousins.

…TommyGunOrange’sextraordinarilyharshresponse(editeddownbyabouttwothirds)

wastriggeredfirstbytheadmissionofNativeAmericanancestryandthenthedefensive

claimthatlotsofNorthAmericanswouldsharethisbackground.Theinitialposteris

perceivedasatroll—whyelsewouldsomeonecoptothisbackgroundamong

Stormfronters—andisscreamedatwitharacistscreed.

Notallsuchbadnewsacceptancesarequitelikethis.Anotherexample,Hello,gotmyDNAresultsandIlearnedtodayIam61%European.Iamveryproudofmywhiteraceandmyeuropeanroots.Iknowmanyofyouare"whitter"thanme,Idon'tcare,ourgoalisthesame.Iwouldliketodoanythingpossibletoprotectourwhiterace,oureuropeanrootsandourwhitefamilies.(RogerOne12-31-15)

TheresponsefromFadingLight(01-01-16)wasquickandharsh:

I'vepreparedyouadrink.It's61%purewater.Therestispotassiumcyanide.Iassumeyouhavenoobjectionstodrinkingit.(Youmightneedtostiritfirstsinceanyonecanseeataglancethatitisn'tpurewater.)Cyanideisn'twater,andYOUarenotWhite.

FadingLighttellsRogerOnetokillhimself,invokingthecommonideathat39%non-

Europeanancestrywouldbeclearlyvisibleandalsothatnon-Europeanancestryislikea

poison.Beorma246(01-01-16)respondedabitmoremildly:“Ifyoudocareaboutthe

Whiterace,don'tbreedwithanyWhitewomen.Thereforenotpollutingourgenepool.”

Apartfromtheracistscreamingdenunciation,weseethetwocommonresponsesfor

acceptingbadnews:killyourselforatleastdon’tbreed.

Interestingly,thesekindsofresponsetobadnewsarefairlyuncommon.AsTable3

shows,shamingordenunciationofsomeonewithproblematicresultsisfarlesscommon

29

thanrepairthroughpersonalsupportorvariousGATreinterpretations.Thoughmore

researchwillbenecessarytoseeifitcanbedeterminedwhenindividualsareenjoinedto

acceptvs.repairbadnews,theformerseemstobereservedmostlyforpostersperceived

tobetrollingorprovokingStormfrontmembers.Indeed,perhapsRogerOneis“only”

counseledtoconsidersuicideorcelibacyratherthanbeingdenouncedasa“stupiddirty

dog”inathousandwordscreedlikeOrion22becauseheclaimedacommitmenttothe

causeandthusmuddiedhisintentions.Butmoregenerally,webelieve,butstillneedto

confirm,thatbadnewsposterswhohavearecordpostingonothertopicsarelikelyto

receiverepairadvice,whereasthosewhoarenewertotheboardaremorelikelytobe

attacked—becausetheywillbeinterpretedaspeoplewhohavedecidedtopostonlytostir

upreactions.

RethinkingtheboundariesofwhitenessandtheprojectofwhitenationalismDiscussionsofGATamongStormfrontpostersgobeyondtheinterpretationof

resultsforanindividual’sownidentityandgoontoconsiderredefininggroupdefinitions

ofwhitenessandwhitenationalism.Firstofallthereisconsiderablediscussionofwhatare

thegeneticmarkersoflegitimatewhitenessorEuropean-ness.Inparticular,posters

discussthehaplogroupsthatdifferentiateamongYchromosomeandMtDNAlinagesand

debatewhetherparticularonesarewhiteandEuropean.Forexample,jvpski3

(09/25/2015)askedabouttheEuropeanbonafidesoftheYchromosomeJ2haplogroup;

postersdebateditssupposedMesopotamianSemiticorigins,relationtootherhaplotypes,

anddistributionintoEuropebyNeolithicpeoples.7

7Seehttps://www.stormfront.org/forum/printthread.php?t=1122696&pp=100(accessedMay1,2017).

30

Inadifferentthread,“Whichisthepurewhitehaplogroup?,”aposterreferredtoaY

haplogroupmapofEurope:“IseethatR1a,R1bandIaretheprominentEuropean

haplogroups”(HaplogroupQuestions11,06/21/08).Semitic-Arabrespondedthatthoseare

theIndo-European/Aryanhaplogroups(06/23/08).AndSabreWolf,pickingupthethread

afterseveraldormantyears,explained“I,J,R,Landtheirsubcladesarethemajor

Caucasoidhaplogroups”(04/04/2014).SabreWolfwentontonoteaproblemhowever,

“ThereareAfrican-AmericanswithR1b,butthatdoesnotmakethemWhite.…Haplogroup

isonlyusefulfortracingthemigrationpath,nottoconfirmraceofindividuals.…Thusonly

fullautosomalPCAtestingisusefultoconfirmrace.”Inthesediscussions,thequestionis

whatarethelegitimatemarkersofwhitenessorEuropean-nessandwhattechnologiescan

deliverthem.AtstakeistheimplicitquestionofwhetherwhitenationalistscoulduseGAT

toderivegeneticcriteriaformembership.

Theriskthatgeneticancestryposestothecoherenceofwhitenationalismandits

membershiprulescanbeseendirectlyinanexchangethatfollowedauswhitepostinghis

resultsthatrevealedatinyportionofnon-Europeanancestry:

demines(08/28/2013)AsperStormfront'srules,youhavetobeofwhollyEuropeandescenttobewhite.https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t579650/

auswhite(08/28/2013)IamofwhollyEuropeandescent.BothmylinestracebacktoEurope,thelastnamesareEuropeanthereligionpracticedonbothsideswereEuropean,myItaliangrandfatherwenttoschoolwithcatholicnunsforcryingoutloud.JustbecauseItookatestanditcamebackwith0.25%nonEuropeandoesnotmeanIamnotwhiteThethoughtofevenconsideringmyselfnonwhitehasnevercrossedmymind.Iamwhiteinbodysoulandspiritthroughandthrough.

bioprof(08/28/2013)Thatrulewillhavetobeupdatedinthefaceofgenetictesting.Anewstandardwillhavetobesetbasedonmoderntechnology.TheOPsgenomeshowingsometinydegreeofadmixtureisgoingtoshowupinamassive

31

numberofindividualsofEuropeandescent.StrictadherencewillresultinveryfewindividualsqualifyingforStormfront.

demineschallengesauswhite’sclaimtobewhitebasedontheGATresult(thoughnormally

thiskindofresultwouldproducerepairresponses).auswhiterepliesdefensivelyto

establishhisancestralandpersonalwhitebonafides.Andthenbioprofrecognizesthe

broaderproblem,whichisthatonastrictgeneticrule,whitenationalismwouldrunoutof

legitimatemembers.

ThisproblemofhowtothinkaboutwhitenationalismintheeraofGATisactively

debatedonStormfront.Forexample,WNquestion123askedothermemberswhohadn’t

takenGATwhattheimplicationswouldbe;woulddiscoveryoflessthan100%whiteness

bedisqualifying?Oneresponsewastosearchthe“fiftypreviousanswers”tothisquestion.

ThomasStuartinvokedaculturalandpoliticaldefinition:“MostWN'sdonotholdtoa"one-

drop"rule.IfyoulookWhite,liveWhite,identifyWhite,ifyourgrand-parentsandgreat-

grand-parentslookedWhite/livedWhite/identifiedWhite--thatisoftensufficient….Notto

mentionthatmanyWN'sdistrusttheDNAservices”(01-09-2014).Thisresponse,of

course,deniesthemanydisgustedpostsaboutnon-whitepollutionofwhitelineages.But

anotherresponsebysparrowwas:

Idon'tthinkthereisgoingtobeonegiantsuper-nation,Iexpecttheretobemultiplesmallernations,possiblyconfederatedinsomeway.Ipredictthateachnationwillhaveitsownuniquedefinitionof"White",eachnationhavingitsownstandardofwhatconstitutesappropriategeneticcompatibility.SoinonenationhavingGhengisKhanasyourancestorwon'tdisqualifyyou,whileinothersitmight.Hypothetically,ImighttakeaDNAtestandfindthatIdon'tqualifyforeveryNationandeveryNation'sStandards,thoughI'msurethatatleastoneofthosenations(andprobablymanyofthem)willhavestandardsthatwouldincludeme,becauseI'mprettysurethatwhateverGeneticmixIhaveisprobablysharedbyacertain%oftheWhitePopulationwherethatparticularmixisactuallythebaselinenormal.Idon'thavetobegranted"Status"everywhere,I'mprettysureIwillbegranted"Status"somewhere.Thatofcourseisspeculativefuturethatwe'renotreallyatyet.(01-09-2014)

32

Thisresponseimaginesafutureofmultiplegeneticallydefinedwhitenationsthatwillset

differentlevelsofstrictnessaccordingtopurity,andaffinityandindividualwhiteswillfind

membershipinoneormoreofthem.Butwecanseeinthisdiscussiontwobasic

approaches.Thefirstistoemphasizeawhitenationalismthatusesculture,family

background,andpoliticalcommitmenttodefinemembership,andtheotherisonethat

takesmoreseriouslyhowasystemmightputgeneticsatthecorewithoutcollapsingunder

overlyrigiddefinitionsofpurity.

Finally,someStormfrontpostershavebeguntotheorizeraceinwaysthatare

specificallyinformedbythelineagelogicofGATs.Inparticularinordertodistinguish

betweenbetterandworseformsofnon-whiteinheritance,theyusethedifferencebetween

GATsbasedonthenon-recombiningYandMtDNA,whichidentifyindividual’spatrilineal

andmatrilinealancestry,andthosebasedonrecombiningautosomalDNA,whichgive

percentsimilaritytoparticularpopulations.AngryGoyexplainstheidea:

HOWEVER,Whenitcomestodirectmaternalandpaternallines,I'mastrictONEDROPfanatic!Inparticularthedirectmaternallineforfemalesandthedirectpaternallineformales.ThereasonwhyI'mmoreliberalwithautosomalDNAisthatnon-WhiteautosomalDNAcanbecutinhalfeverygenerationfrom25,12.5,6,3,1.5,.75andsoontothepointwerethenon-Whiteadmixtureisirrelevant.Ontheotherhand,IammorestrictwithYandmtDNAhaplogroupsbecausethesehaplogroupsarepassedfromfathertoson,mothertodaughter,andremainvirtuallyunchangedindefinitelyfor10to20to30generations!...IwillbesomewhatrelievedifIfindoutthebi-racialfemalehasaWhiteMotherorthebi-racialmalehasaWhitefather.Idon'tapplaudorcondoneanybi-racialpersonwithaWhitepartner,BUT,thebi-racialfemalewithaWhiteMotherorthebi-racialmalewithaWhitefatherarethelesseroftwoevilswhenitcomestopotentialassimilation.(11-23-2012)

Thisisanupdatingofaone-droprulethatmeasuresthelongterm“danger”ofnon-white

ancestryintermsofthechancethatitcanbe“diluted”insubsequentgenerationsofwhite-

onlyinterbreeding.Anon-whitefatherofboysoranon-whitemotherofgirlsisaproblem

33

willallowthenon-whiteessencetobetransmittedunchangeddownlineages.Whilenon-

whitefathersofgirlsornon-whitemothersofboysarelessdangerousbecausenon-whiteY

andMtDNAwillnotbepassedontochildren.

Butbioprofpostedarejoindertothisidea:What?!Idon'tgetthis.mtDNAandY-DNAhavelittleinfluenceongeneticexpressionwhencomparedtoautosomes.Idoseeyour"washingout"ofautosomesreasoning,butIalsoseelong-termadmixtureofthosegenesmoreproblematic.OncethatadmixturebeginsinapopulationitjustbuildsandbuildsuntilyouhaveBrazil.(11-23-2012)

Theresponseisthattheideaofdifferentialgeneticdilutionmightmakesenseinthe

abstract,butthatthenon-recombiningpartsofDNAarenotresponsibleforracial

phenotypes.Furthermore,oncenon-whiteDNAisadmittedintothegenepoolitcannotbe

controlledandthepracticaloutcomewillbearaciallyheterogeneouspopulation.Whatwe

canseeinthisdebateisatensionbetweenbioprof’sphenotypicandpragmatic

understandingofthegeneticsofraceandAngryGoy’slogicalandessentialist

conceptualization,bothofwhichhavegeneticconnectionsbutdifferentpractical

implications.

Discussion

GATshavebeenamongthemostpubliclyvisibleandavailableproductsofthe

recentgeneticsrevolution.Companieshavepitchedthemasanopportunityforindividuals

toknowthemselvesbetter,andGATadvocateshavecelebratedtheirpotentialtofoster

connectionsandunderstandinginaraciallyandethnicallyfragmentedworld.8Though

researchisaccumulatingontheidentityimplicationsofGATforvariousgroups,oursisthe

8Indeedthetravelbookingsitemomondo.comhasmarketedtheirserviceswithaseriesofmelodramaticwebfilmsgivingpeopleGATs,tapingtheirreactions,andencouragingtraveltoexplorebackgroundandexperienceotherness.Seehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxpbnnGX6raZfTJcdt5_7Ag(accessed,May26,2017).

34

firsttoconsidertheimplicationsforwhitenationalistswhobelieveracialpurityandethnic

separationaretheformulaforabetterfuture.

Usingakindof“decisiontree”,ourstudymapstherangeofresponsestoindividuals

revealingtheirGATresultsonthewhitenationalistbulletinboard,Stormfront.Some

postersreported“goodnews”thatconfirmedexpectedorhopedforwhiteorEuropean

backgrounds.Moreinteresting,thoughwereresponsesto“badnews”revealingsome

fractionoftheposter’sancestrywasnon-whiteornon-European.Onesetofresponseswas

torejectthelegitimacyofGATduetotheirsupposedtaintingbyaJewishconspiracyor

theirinferioritytotraditionalgenealogyandwhiteracialconsciousness.Asecondsetof

responsesacceptedGAT,butusingstatistical,logical,orhistoricalcritiquesofgenetic

researchreinterpretedthedamagingresultsinlessdangerousways.Athirdsetof

responses,usedsomewhatrarelyandespeciallyagainstperceived“trolls,”acceptedbad

newsandattackedthosewhoborethetaintedbackgrounds.Finally,weconsideredways

thatwhitenationalistshaveacceptedthatGATshaveimplicationsforthelargermovement

andhavesoughttousethemtoreimagineitsboundaries.

WebeganbywonderingwhetherwhitenationalistswoulduseGATidentifiedbad

newstodoubledownongeneticboundariesofidentityorwouldseektoexplainitaway.

Clearlybothresponseshappen.Butthoughoursampledoesnotallowustomodelthe

frequencyofdifferentresponses,whitenationalistsseemtoexpendmuchmoreeffort

explainingawaybadnewsthandrawingboundarieswithit.

AlondraNelson(2006)describesAfricanAmericans’approachestoGATas

characterizedby“affiliativeself-fashioning.”Thatis,AfricanAmericanstendtoacceptand

incorporateseemingly“objective”GATresultsmainlyinsofarastheyfitprioraspirations

35

forcommunityattachment.Nelsonlinksthiscautiousandpragmaticinterpretative

strategytoAfricanAmerican’scollectiveexperiencewithhistoricallyracistand

exclusionaryscientificandmedicalinstitutions.

Inaperhapsironictwist,ourstudyshowsthatwhitenationaliststooengageina

versionofaffiliativeself-fashioning.Thewhitenationalistversionofaffiliativeself-

fashioningseemsmorecollectivelyorganizedthantheculturallyconditioned,but

somewhatindividualizedpracticesNelsondescribes.WhitenationalistsonStormfrontare

abletoreinterpretGATusingasetofrefined,widelyavailablescriptsincludingthe

assertionofelite,Jewishconspiracies,thevalorizationofknowledgeandconsciousness

derivedfromwhitenationalism,andthealternateaccountsofscienceandhistorybasedon

presumptionsaboutwhitesuperiorityinhistory.

ArewhitenationalistsparticularlyvulnerabletoGAT’spotentialfor“genealogical

dislocation”(Nelson2016)?Scholarsdescribewhitenessassubjecttoapermanentcrisis

(Hughey2012,Winant1997).Andwhitenationalists’fetishizationofgenetic

distinctiveness,purity,andhierarchyseemstomakethemparticularlyvulnerabletosmall

“anomalies”—especiallyincontrasttomanypeopleofcolorwhobelievethemselvestobe

“allmixedupanyway.”Butiftheyarevulnerable,workingtogetheronStormfront,white

nationalistshavealsoarmedthemselveswithasetofideologicalimaginaries,scripts,and

conceptstocopewiththeproblem.

Raceisthecommandingvariableinthewhitenationalistworldview.Andthoughit

isimportantbecauseofitstiestoculture,civilization,tradition,power,andplace,raceis

conceivedasfundamentallybiological.Thecorereasonformany,perhapsmost,

invocationsofgeneticsonStormfrontistoderidetheideathatraceis“socially

36

constructed”orinanywayephemeralormutable.Whitenationalistsgenerallyinterpret

GATalongthelinesofracialessentialismasPhelanetal.(2014)wouldhavepredicted.

However,aswehaveshown,GATalsotroublestheboundariesandmembershipof

whitenationalism.Butwhatismoreinteresting,GAThasspecifiedandfocusedhowwhite

nationalistsunderstandandmightcopewiththeseproblems.Thetechnicalaffordancesof

GAT—thekindsofbelonginganddifferenceitmakesvisible—shapehowwhitenationalists

thinkabouttheboundariesandcontoursoflegitimatewhiteness.First,GAThasnot

providedthemwitha“test”ofwhiteness,butratherthandebatingwhethersuchathingis

possibleintheabstract,theyhavebeguntothinkofparticularMtDNAandYchromosome

haplotypesastypicallyEuropean(andmanyothersasdisqualifying).

Second,GAThashelpedeffectatransitioninthedebatesaboutmembershipcriteria

from,“Non-JewishpeopleofwhollyEuropeandescent.Noexceptions”to,“Whatisthe

specificthreshold?”nowthatquantitativegeneticestimatesareavailable.GAThas

sharpenedthedividebetweenanabsolutedefinitionofbelongingandonethathasto

contendwithquantitativegradationsanddifferentcompositionsofwhiteness.Thisdebate

hasimmediatepoliticalstakes:Iswhitenationalismaneliteclubforpurewhitesora

movementthatwillhavetomakecompromisestobenumericallyeffective?

Third,GAThashelpedopenupacontestbetweentheideathatallracemixture

polluteswhitenessandthatsomemightbe“dilutedaway”solongasitdoesnotaffectthe

non-recombiningpaternalormaternallineages.Furthermore,ithashelpedopenupa

debateaboutwhatexactlyisdespoilingaboutracialmixture:isitspecificallyracialtraits

thatmightbecarriedonparticulargenes,invisibleessencescarriedwithhaplogroupsthat

37

don’tmanifestracially,ortheuncontrollabilityofgeneticmixtureingeneral?Allthese

positionscanbeseeninthefinalexchangeaboveaboutmoreandlessdangerousmixing.

ThelargerpointhereisthatGAT—MtDNAandYchromosomehaplotypelineages

andautosomalancestryestimation—havemadeparticularkindsofrelationshipsvisible

andthusparticularboundaryandidentityproblemsandsolutionsimaginable.GAThasnot

madewhitenationalistsmoreorlessracist,butithasshapedthepossibilitiesofracist

imaginationandcognition.

Finally,itwouldbeaseriousmistaketoviewwhitenationalistsasignorantor

stupidorasstraightforwardlywronginthewaytheyareinterpretingGATandpopulation

genetics.First,wecanseeinsomewhitenationalists’rejectionofGATduetotheirmistrust

ofexpertsandvalorizationofcommunity-basedconsciousnessandknowledge;apattern

identifiedbeforebySTSscholars(Wynne1992).Furthermore,thewhitenationalists

grapplingwithhowtointerpretGATandhowtheirconstructionaffectstheircredibility

havecertainlyacquiredaformoflayexpertise(Epstein1995).9

Itisprobablytheprevailingviewamonggeneticiststhatwhiledifferentsocially-

definedracialgroupsdohaveminoraggregategeneticdifferences,raceisnotagenetic

concept(Bliss2012,Morning2011,Reardon2005).HumanGenomeProjectdirector

FrancisCollinsfamouslysaid,“Thosewhowishtodrawpreciseracialboundariesaround

certaingroupswillnotbeabletousescienceasalegitimatejustification”(quotedinBliss

2012,1).InonesenseCollinsisright;thispaperisallaboutwhitenationalists’struggles

withthe“precision”oftheirideologicalexpectationsaboutrace.ButCollins’expectation9ThisdynamiccanbeseeninaStormfrontdiscussionthreadaboutGATthathasbeencontinuallyupdatedsince2003.Severalindividuals,suchasJohnJoyTreeandGreenGoddess,haveestablishedthemselvesasauthoritativevoicesongeneticsovertime.Seehttps://www.stormfront.org/forum/t96295/(accessed5/28/2017).

38

wasthegeneticdatawouldforceanabandonmentofstrongviewsofrace.Ratherthan

compellingaparticularunderstandingofrace,geneticsandGAThavesetintomotionanew

racialontologicalchoreography(Thompson2005),whichistosaynewformsofagency.

Whitenationalists,likebricoleurs(LeviStrauss1966)haveusedgeneticmaterialsto

reinforce,thoughalsotoreconfigure,theirracialworldview.

Crucially,theinformationpopulationgeneticistshaveproducedisquiteavailable

forracistinterpretations.Forexample,populationgeneticistsprefertothinkaboutthe

globaldistributionofMt-DNAhaplogroupsinwaysthatconveyvariationandblur

boundariesbetweengroupssuchasinthismapwhichuseslocalpiechartstoconveythe

variationineachgeographicpopulation.Thestoryhereisthatnopopulation(eventhose

selectedforhomogeneity)isgeneticallypure,nordohaplogroupsfollowracialboundaries.

[Figure2abouthere]

ButwhenwhitenationalistswanttoknowthewhichMtDNAhaplogroupsare

properlyEuropean,theyarethinkingaboutmapsliketheseproducedbypopulation

geneticists(ortheirGATcompanies):

[Figure3abouthere]MapslikeFigure3aredesignedtogiveapictureofhowhaplogroupsmapinspaceand

timetorevealsomethingaboutmigrationsandrelationshipsamongancientpopulations.

Buttheyalsoseemtoindicatethatparticularplaceshaveparticulargenetictypes,though

theseareatbestthemodalvariety.Andthustheyareeasilyassimilabletowhite

nationalists’viewsofthetightrelationshipbetweenplaceandrace(Zeskind2009;Daniels

2009;Willoughby-Herard2015).

39

Thus,whilewhitenationalistsarereachingwhatpopulationgeneticistsandother

expertsinhumanbiologicaldiversitywouldsayarethewrongconclusions.Theyaredoing

sobasednotonwildmisinterpretationsoranti-scientificconceptualizations,butratherby

processingthroughracistcognition(Brubaker,LovemanandStamatov2004)thematerials

thatgeneticistsandgeneticancestrytestingcompanieschurnintothepublic.BecauseGAT

resultsareoftenpresentedasmapsofhaplogroupsandbioregions,thevisualizationof

resultsreifywhitenationalists’beliefsinnaturalizedphysicalbordersandboundaries

betweenterritoriesandpeople.Unlikewhitesupremacistswhomayseekinformationfrom

geneticiststoproveahierarchyofraces(Panofsky2014),theflatteningofgeneticsonto

colorcodedworldmapsprovidesasymbioticsetofmeanings,whereGATresultsconflate

contemporarynationalborderswithraceandbiology(Nash2015).ForUSwhite

nationalists,non-JewishEuropeanheritageisaproudmarkerofnotonlypurity,butalso

thespiritofempireandcolonizationbyEuropeansofTheUnitedStatesofAmerica.

Thissituationpresentsanethicalandpoliticalproblemforscientificexpertsof

humanbiodiversity.Experts’ideasarehighlyavailableformisappropriation.White

nationalistmisappropriators—muchlessmarginalasagroupthanevenoneyearago—are

notignorant,yettheyaresuspiciousofexpertise.Thisconjunctionsuggeststhatclear

communication,simpleformsofeducation,andcollectivedenunciationsofscientific

misuses(e.g.,Coop,2014),scientists’preferredformsofanti-racistaction,areinsufficient

forthetask.Challengingracists’publicunderstandingofscienceisnotsimplyamatterof

moreeducationornuance,butmayrequirescientiststorethinktheirresearchparadigms

andreflexivelyinterrogatetheirownknowledgeproduction.

40

MethodologicalAppendixEspeciallyonStormfront,debatesaboutone’sowndescentarecrucialascriteriafor

remainingarespectedcommunitymemberisbasedontheone-droprule.Accordingto

JohnLaw,StormfrontSeniorModerator,heexplainswhoiswhite,"Non-Jewishpeopleof

whollyEuropeandescent.Noexceptions.Andifyoutellusyou'renot,wewillbelieve

you.”10Whilethereismuchdiscussionofgenealogyandfamilylineage,wesoughtout

threadsrelatedtoDNAtestingspecificallytoseehowwhitesupremacistscopedwiththese

scientificresults.Tofindthreadscontainingancestrytestresults,weusedStormfront’s

searchengineandcombedthreadscontainingthefollowingwordsorcompanynames:

1.DNATest(57Threads)2.Haplotype(678Threads)3.Haplogroup(1250Threads)4.Autosomal(583Threads)5.mtDNA(1250Threads)6.YDNA(192threads)7.23andMe(276Threads)8.Ancestry.com(704Threads)9.AncestryByDNA(158Threads)10.GEDMatch(30Threads)11.NationalGeographic(1250Threads)12.FamilyTreeDNA(144Threads)13.DNASolutions(1Thread)

Stormfrontonlyprovidesthetop1250matchesforeachsearch.Aftersearchingfor

thesetermsindividually,wesortedthroughthe6,753threadstoremoveduplicates.Ofthe

remainingthreads,wecompiledadatabaseofseventythreadscontainingoneormoreDNA

ancestrytestresults.Acrossthiscorpusofseventythreads,wefound639postswhere

membersdescribetheirfamily’slineage,where153ofthosemembersincludedtheirentire

DNAtestingresults,wheretheyidentifiedDNAtestingcompany,suchas23andMe,

Ancestry.comDNASolutions,FamilyTreeDNA,NationalGeographicandmore.

10Seehttps://www.stormfront.org/forum/t579652/(accessedJune2,2017)

41

IfapostcontainedaDNAancestrytestresult,wecodeditforthetypeoftestresult

includingmtDNA,Y-DNA,orAutosomal.Wethencategorizedhowtheoriginalposter

reactedtotheresultsusingthefollowingcodes:confirmedpriorknowledge,uncertain,

welcomesurprise,orunwelcomesurprise.Fromhere,wewereabletoseehowother

membersreactedtotheoriginalposterandmarkedarangeofresponsetypesbasedonif

theresultswereacceptedorrejected.Responsesthataimedtorepairtheidentityofthe

originalposterwerecodedinthefollowingcategories:

1. EmotionallySupportive2. Suggeststhatbetterdataanalysisisavailableortomoveyourdata3. Rejecttestingcompanyoutright4. Suggesttherearetechnical/statisticalerrorintests5. Delegitimizegenetictests6. Suggestthatpostermisinterpretedtestresults7. Refutethetestonscientificgrounds8. Providesaneducationalorascientificexplanation

Ininstanceswhererespondersattackedtheoriginalposter,weappliedthe

followingcodes:

1.Racistclaimorrantnottargetedatpersonortest2.Shamingorexclusionoforiginalposter3.Suspicionthattheoriginalposterisatroll4.Callingtheoriginalposter“notwhite”

Asdiscussionsdevelopedwithinthreads,wemarkedpoststhatprovidedscientific

evidenceoreducationadvocatingaparticularreadingoftheresultsoradvocatedfora

specificunderstandingofgenetics.Hereisalistofthosecodes:

1. Citingatextorauthor(book/article)2. ExplainsGATquantificationand/orhaplogroups3. MakesappealtotheoriesofDNAandGenetics4. Providesadefinitionof“whoiswhite”or“whiteness”5. Discussionofwhitenessasculture,notjustbiology6. Educationalpostdirectlycommentingonoriginalposters’GATresults7. Explainsrelationshipofnationsandraces8. Racistattackagainstaracializedgroupusingscientificexplanation9. RefutationofGATonscientificgrounds10. Verygeneralexplanationofgeneticsmeanttoeducateallreaders

42

Toensureintercoderreliabilityeachthreadwasanalyzedbyatleasttwocoders.We

areunabletomakebroadquantitativeclaimsfromthesedatafortworeasons.One,the

searchfunctionofStormfrontartificiallylimitedthescopeofourkeywordqueries.Two,

postingDNAancestrytestresultsoftenprovokesarichdiscursivediscussionthatrequires

qualitativecontextualization.Thatistosay,postsarerelationaltothedebatesnotonly

withinasinglethread,butalsoacrosstheentiremessageboard,aswellastothewhite

nationalistmovement.

ReferencesAbel,DavidSchwab.1998.“TheRacistNextDoor”NewTimesFeb.19-25,1998Reprinted

here:https://www.stormfront.org/dblack/racist_021998.htmBenjamin,Ruha.2013.People'sScience:BodiesandRightsontheStemCellFrontier.

Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.Bliss,Catherine.2012.RaceDecoded.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.Bolnick,DeborahA.,DuanaFullwiley,TroyDuster,RichardS.Cooper,JoanH.Fujimura,

JonathanKahn,JayS.Kaufman,JonathanMarks,AnnMorning,AlondraNelson,PilarOssorio,JennyReardon,SusanM.ReverbyandKimberlyTallBear.2007."Genetics:TheScienceandBusinessofGeneticAncestryTesting."Science318(5849):399-400.doi:10.1126/science.1150098.

Brodkin,Karen.1998.HowJewsBecameWhiteFolksandWhatThatSaysAboutRaceinAmerica.NewBrunswick:RutgersUniversityPress.

Brubaker,Rogers,MaraLovemanandPeterStamatov.2004."EthnicityasCognition."TheoryandSociety33:31-64.

Cann,RebeccaL.,MarkStonekingandAllanC.Wilson.1987."MitochondrialDNAandHumanEvolution."Nature325(6099):31-36.

Caren,N.,Jowers,K.andGaby,S.2012."Asocialmovementonlinecommunity:Stormfrontandthewhitenationalistmovement."ResearchinSocialMovements,Conflict,andChange,33:163–193.

Cobb,Craig.2015.“CraigCobb'sAncestry.comDNAResults”retrievedfromhttps://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1092083/on5/29/2017.

Coop,Graham,MichaelB.Eisen,RasmusNielsen,MollyPrzeworskiandNoahRosenberg.2014."Letters:‘ATroublesomeInheritance’."inNewYorkTimesBookReview.

Daniels,Jessie.2009.CyberRacism:WhiteSupremacyOnlineandtheNewAttackonCivilRights.Lanham,Md:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers.

Davis,DenaS.2004."GeneticResearch&CommunalNarratives."HastingsCenterReportJuly-August:40-49.

Donovan,Joan.2016.“‘CanYouHearMenow?’PhreakingthePartyLinefromOperatorstoOccupy.”Information,Communication&Society19(5):601–617.

Duster,Troy.2006."TheMolecularReinscriptionofRace:UnanticipatedIssuesinBiotechnologyandForensicScience."PatternsofPrejudice40(427-441).

43

Duster,Troy.2011."AncestryTestingandDNA:Uses,Limits,andCaveatEmptor."Pp.99-115inRaceandtheGeneticRevolution,editedbyS.KrimskyandK.Sloan.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Emery,LeslieS,KevinMMagnaye,AbigailWBigham,JoshuaMAkeyandMichaelJBamshad.2015."EstimatesofContinentalAncestryVaryWidelyamongIndividualswiththeSameMtdnaHaplogroup."TheAmericanJournalofHumanGenetics96(2):183-93.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.12.015.

Epstein,Steven.1995."TheConstructionofLayExpertise:AidsActivismandtheForgingofCredibilityintheReformofClinicalTrials."Science,Technology,&HumanValues20(4):408-37.

Epstein,Steven.2007.Inclusion:ThePoliticsofDifferenceinMedicalResearch.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Fujimura,JoanH.andRamyaRajagopalan.2011."DifferentDifferences:TheUseof‘GeneticAncestry’VersusRaceinBiomedicalHumanGeneticResearch."SocialStudiesofScience41(1):5-30.doi:10.1177/0306312710379170.

Fullwiley,Duana.2008."TheBiologisticalConstructionofRace:`Admixture'TechnologyandtheNewGeneticMedicine."SocialStudiesofScience38(5):695-735.doi:10.1177/0306312708090796.

Gannett,Lisa.2014."BiogeographicalAncestryandRace."StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofSciencePartC:StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences47,PartA(0):173-84.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.05.017.

Goffman,Erving.1963.Stigma:NotesontheManagementofSpoiledIdentity.EngelwoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Hara,Noriko;Estrada,Zilia.Hateandpeaceinaconnectedworld:ComparingMoveOnandStormfront.FirstMonday,[S.l.],dec.2003.ISSN13960466.Availableat:<http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1104/1024>.Dateaccessed:03May.2016.doi:10.5210/fm.v8i12.1104.

Harris,CherylI.1993."WhitenessasProperty."HarvardLawReview106(8):1707-91.doi:10.2307/1341787.

Hochschild,Jennifer,VeslaWeaverandTraciBurch.2012.CreatingaNewRacialOrder:HowImmigration,Genomics,andtheYoungCanRemakeRaceinAmerica.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Hughey,MatthewW.2012.WhiteBound:Nationalists,Antiracists,andtheSharedMeaningsofRace.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Lee,SandraSoo-Jin,DeborahA.Bolnick,TroyDuster,PilarOssorioandKimberlyTallBear.2009."TheIllusiveGoldStandardinGeneticAncestryTesting."Science325(5936):38-39.doi:10.1126/science.1173038.

LeviStrauss,Claude.1966.TheSavageMind.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.McDonald,J.Douglas.2005."WorldHaplogroupsMaps."Morning,Ann.2011.TheNatureofRace:HowScientistsThinkandTeachAboutHuman

Difference.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Nash,Catherine.2015.GeneticGeographies:TheTroublewithAncestry.Minneapolis:

UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Nelson,Alondra.2008."BioScience:GeneticGenealogyTestingandthePursuitofAfrican

Ancestry."SocialStudiesofScience38(5):759-83.doi:10.1177/0306312708091929.

44

Nelson,AlondraandJeongWonHuang.2011."RootsandRevelation:GeneticAncestryTestingandtheYoutubeGeneration."Pp.272-90inRaceAftertheInternet,editedbyL.NakamuraandP.A.Chow-White.NewYork:Routledge.

Nelson,Alondra.2016.TheSocialLifeofDNA.Boston:Beacon.Nordgren,AndersandEricT.Juengst.2009."CanGenomicsTellMeWhoIAm?

EssentialisticRhetoricinDirect-to-ConsumerDNATesting."NewGeneticsandSociety28(2):157-72.doi:10.1080/14636770902901595.

Panofsky,Aaron.2014.MisbehavingScience:ControversyandtheDevelopmentofBehaviorGenetics.UniversityofChicagoPress.

Panofsky,AaronandCatherineBliss.2017."AmbiguityandScientificAuthority:PopulationClassificationinGenomicScience."AmericanSociologicalReview82(1):59-87.doi:doi:10.1177/0003122416685812.

Phelan,JoC.,BruceG.LinkandNaumiM.Feldman.2013."TheGenomicRevolutionandBeliefsAboutEssentialRacialDifferences:ABackdoortoEugenics?".AmericanSociologicalReview78(2):167–91.doi:10.1177/0003122413476034.

Phelan,JoC.,BruceG.Link,SarahZelnerandLawrenceH.Yang.2014."Direct-to-ConsumerRacialAdmixtureTestsandBeliefsAboutEssentialRacialDifferences."SocialPsychologyQuarterly77(3):296-318.doi:10.1177/0190272514529439.

Rabinow,Paul.1996.EssaysontheAnthropologyofReason.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Reardon,Jenny.2005.RacetotheFinish:IdentityandGovernanceinanAgeofGenomics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Reeve,Elspeth.2016.“WhiteNonsense.”ViceNews(https://news.vice.com/story/alt-right-trolls-are-getting-23andme-genetic-tests-to-prove-their-whiteness?cl=fp).

Rose,Nikolas.2007.ThePoliticsofLifeItself.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Roth, Wendy D. and Biorn Ivemark. 2017. “Genetic Options: The Impact of Genetic Ancestry

Testing on Ethnic and Racial Identities.” Paper presented at the Brandeis University Sociology Department Colloquium, Waltham, MA, March 23.

Royal,CharmaineD.,JohnNovembre,StephanieM.Fullerton,DavidB.Goldstein,JeffreyC.Long,MichaelJ.BamshadandAndrewG.Clark.2010."InferringGeneticAncestry:Opportunities,Challenges,andImplications."TheAmericanJournalofHumanGenetics86(5):661-73.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.03.011.

Shostak,Sara,JeremyFreese,BruceG.LinkandJoC.Phelan.2009."ThePoliticsoftheGene:SocialStatusandBeliefsAboutGeneticsforIndividualOutcomes."SocialPsychologyQuarterly72:79-93.

Simpson,PatriciaAnneandHelgaDruxes.2015.DigitalMediaStrategiesoftheFarRightinEuropeandtheUnitedStates.LexingtonBooks.

TallBear,Kim.2013.NativeAmericanDNA:TribalBelongingandtheFalsePromiseofGeneticScience.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Thompson,Charis.2005.MakingParents:TheOntologicalChoreographyofReprodutiveTechnologies.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Wagner,JenniferK.andKennethM.Weiss.2011."AttitudesonDNAAncestryTests."HumanGenetics131(1):41-56.doi:10.1007/s00439-011-1034-5.

Waters,MaryC.1990.EthnicOptions:ChoosingIdentitiesinAmerica.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

45

Waters,MaryC.2014."EthnicIdentitiesintheFuture:ThePossibleEffectsofMassImmigrationandGeneticTesting."EthnicandRacialStudies37(5):766-69.doi:10.1080/01419870.2013.871054.

Willoughby-Herard,Tiffany.2015.WasteofaWhiteSkin:TheCarnegieCorporationandtheRacialLogicofWhiteVulnerability.UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Winant,Howard.1997."BehindBlueEyes:WhitenessandContemporaryUsRacialPolitics."NewLeftReviiewI/225(September-October):73-88.

Wynne,Brian.1992."MisunderstoodMisunderstanding:SocialIdentitiesandPublicUptakeofScience."PublicUnderstandingofScience1:281-304.

Zeskind,Leonard.2009.BloodandPolitics:TheHistoryoftheWhiteNationalistMovementfromtheMarginstotheMainstream.FirstEditionedition.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux.

Zhang,Sarah.2016.“WilltheAlt-RightPromoteaNewKindofRacistGenetics?”TheAtlantic(https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/genetics-race-ancestry-tests/510962/)

Zuberi,TukufuandEduardoBonilla-Silva,eds.2008.WhiteLogic,WhiteMethods:RacismandMethodology.NewYork:Rowman&Littlefield.

46

FiguresFigure1:WhiteNationalistGATResultsDecisionTree

47

Figure2—MtDNAHaplogroupsoftheWorld(McDonald2005)

48

Figure3—Y-DNAHumanMigration11

11FromtheGATcompanyFamilyTreeDNA.Seehttps://www.familytreedna.com/groups/china/about/background(accessedMay26,2017)

49

Tables

TABLE1GATconsumerresultsbytesttype

AutosomalDNA(grouppercent) 86YDNAhaplogroups 34MtDNAhaplogroups 33Totalnumberofcases 153

TABLE2

GATConsumerResultReactionsPostedtestresultswithnoreactionorexplanation 51Confirmationofpriorknowledge 28Unwelcomesurprise 28Welcomesurprise 25Uncertainofhowtointerpretresults 21Totalnumberofcases 153

TABLE3RangeofStormfrontMembers’ReactionstoOriginalPosters’GATResults

Providesaneducationalorascientificexplanation 1260Suggeststhatbetterdataanalysisisavailableortomoveyourdata 224Delegitimizegenetictests 224Rejecttestingcompanyoutright 135Suggesttherearetechnical/statisticalerrorintests 114Emotionallysupportive 111Racistclaim/rantnottargetedatpersonortest 98Suspicionthattheoriginalposterisatroll 72Shamingorexclusionoforiginalposter 65Refutethetestresultsonscientificgrounds 45Suggestthatpostermisinterpretedtestresults 44Callingtheoriginalposter“notwhite” 42

50

TABLE4

TypesofEducationalorScientificExplanationsbyStormfrontMembersProvidesadefinitionof“whoiswhite”or“whiteness” 451Citingatextorauthor(book/article) 446MakesappealtotheoriesofDNAandGenetics 361Verygeneralexplanationofgeneticsmeanttoeducateallreaders 236Explainsrelationshipofnationsandraces 202ExplainsGATquantificationand/orhaplogroups 146Discussionofwhitenessasculture,notjustbiology 109Racistattackagainstaracializedgroupusingscientificexplanation 107Educationalpostdirectlycommentingonoriginalposters’GATresults 63RefutationofGATonscientificgrounds 45