A frequent complaint I’ve received over the past nine months or so is that it is inappropriate of me to mix into my discussion of ancient astronauts and alternative history anything smacking of either politics or contemporary implications for the claims alternative history proponents make. On one hand, I understand the desire to isolate historical studies from modern political controversies, but on the other hand I find it impossible to divorce the two since alternative history is born of politics and speaks to political discontent. I believe that restricting discussion to purely mechanical issues of what facts alternative historians faked, or which quotations they got wrong, or how ancient sites could really have been built impoverishes our understanding of the underlying meanings and motives behind fabricated history. This process is in evidence from the very dawn of modern alternative history movements—and even before, back at least to the time when the priests of Marduk rewrote the Mesopotamian creation myth to place the Babylon’s god in the center of events in place of Enlil, transforming and altering what had heretofore been the established history of creation. Make no mistake, this was an act of politics as much as religion. In the eighteenth century and nineteenth century, the alternative theory of the lost white race of the Mound Builders, eventually canonized as Mormonism, emerged essentially as a political act, placing white American securely on the American continent by first providing justification for the suppression of Native American “interlopers” and by secondly providing a fictive “white” history of America independent from that of Britain. While today many prefer to ignore the political implications of the Mound Builder myth, they were not lost on U.S. government officials like Pres. Andrew Jackson, who discussed these political implications in a speech delivered to Congress, as well as future presidents William Henry Harrison and Abraham Lincoln, who both embraced the idea that ancient white tribes and/or biblical giants once roamed America, uniquely descending ancestral and divine blessings onto the Republic. Such a relationship between politics and alternative history is relatively uncontroversial when sequestered deeply enough in the past that it no longer has a clear effect on modern political controversies. This continued in the nineteenth century. Alexander Hislop’s painfully influential Two Babylons, which posited a millennia-old global pagan cult masquerading as the Catholic Church, was part of the anti-Catholic hysteria of nineteenth century politics, just as the anti-Freemason conspiracies originated in the political paranoia of the American and French Revolutionary eras. Thomas Sinclair explicitly stated in 1892 that he advocated the alternative history claim that Henry Sinclair had discovered America in the 1300s because it could be used to create a less welcoming environment for Italian immigrants, whom he viewed as Latin interlopers using Columbus to justify the mongrelizing of Anglo-American white populations. The father of Atlantis and lost civilization nonsense, Ignatius Donnelly, was a U.S. congressman and held several other government posts. His promotion of Atlantis as the true Aryan homeland during an age dominated by imperialism supported the politically-motivated idea that “Aryan” peoples once ruled the world and therefore had the political right to reign over the non-Aryan peoples again. The Victorian British adopted the idea of lost white civilizations to help impose Britain’s imperium across the British Empire. Most directly, this took the form of denying that black Africans constructed Great Zimbabwe, and the idea of “white” construction of the site remained an officially-sanctioned government lie down to the end of white-ruled Rhodesia in 1980, a lie specifically designed to prevent black Africans from getting the idea that they had a powerful past that might contribute to a powerful future. The Nazis promoted the most notorious version of these claims, advocating a lost Aryan homeland and sending archaeologists around the world to manufacture proof of it in order to justify German claims to lands across Europe and around the world, as well as to support the notion of Aryan racial superiority. I hope it is not controversial (except perhaps to Scott Wolter, who argued that at least one Nazi sympathizer did crackerjack research into white colonization of the Americas) to say that this distortion of history existed in service of ideology. As we move forward in time, the political nature of alternative history starts to become more troublesome for many observers because these politics begin to directly impinge on political ideas and controversies that directly affect them. Somehow recent alternative history no longer has anything to do with politics or society and is now simply an “open-minded” way of looking at the truth. The facts, however, belie this. We know that the United States government worked to create fake UFO sightings to mess with the Soviets, and the Soviet government actively and officially promoted the fiction of ancient astronauts for a time in a concerted effort to undermine Western religious beliefs. These Soviet propaganda efforts spilled over into the West, where leftist sympathizers adopted them. Foremost among them were Jacques Bergier (a Russian émigré) and Louis Pauwels, whose ur-text for the ancient astronaut movement and historical conspiracy theories, Morning of the Magicians, derived much of its ancient astronaut material from Soviet sources. At the time of writing, Pauwels and Bergier were actively promoting New Age counterculture socialism, though Pauwels eventually became a conservative, renewed his Catholic faith, and denounced Morning and its offshoots as “paganism.” By contrast, Erich von Däniken has always been a political conservative and was unabashed in asserting that his ancient astronaut theory could be used as a tool to promote conservatism and defeat socialism. He wrote a letter to then-U.S. president Gerald Ford in 1976, which I obtained from the National Archives last year, in which he explained this in detail: …Western Europe seems to be penetrated nowadays by leftist blockheads. The press of the countries surrounding my neutral native country Switzerland is dominated by socialist dreamers. The big masses do not realize the ins and outs of our today’s situation and are blindly falling to the big deception. Von Däniken advocated manned space travel as the solution, and he hoped that ancient astronauts would help inspire the youth to embrace the West and reject communism. These feelings remained evident in his work down to the present. Recently, in Twilight of the Gods, von Däniken expressed contempt for a number of political views and policies associated with liberals, including women’s equality and climate change. In his view, the aliens serve as semi-divine enforcers of tradition, demanding that humans conform to a conservative agenda laid down in holy books or face nuclear annihilation and/or anal probing.
In Scott Wolter’s new book, Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers, he explicitly states that his interest in a global super-cult venerating the sacred feminine and living in harmony with the environment stems from his political beliefs in feminism, the dangers of overpopulation, and his concern that current government policies are leading to the depletion of natural resources. Therefore, by finding a super-society that had successfully solved these problems in the past, he could effect change in the present. Most noticeably, fundamentalist creationists have married their revision of the historical record to a political agenda that stretches into areas beyond science. In a slightly different arena, Raël has not been shy about injecting the Raëlian ancient astronaut cult into everything from international relations to the debate over human cloning. Now, obviously, not every hack with a book deal is explicitly trying to influence political debates or change government policies. In fact, many probably have never given a moment’s thought to the political origins or impact of the ideas they advocate. I’m fairly certain, for example, that David Childress doesn’t view his work as having any broader meaning beyond serving as a mass of entertaining secondhand anecdotes. The point, however, is that it isn’t possible to simply divorce alternative history claims from the political contexts in which they emerge and participate.
57 Comments
titus pullo
11/7/2013 05:49:22 am
Jason,
Reply
The Other J.
11/7/2013 06:42:08 am
Your collecting all of these examples in one post shows me something else:
Reply
Only Me
11/7/2013 07:35:01 am
What we are witnessing is a shift on the macro level toward what has already been accomplished on the micro level...aliens as a supplement or alternative to established religion. The above mentioned Raëlian cult and the cult-like following of Billy Meier are but two examples. And, speaking for myself, I'd rather face nuclear annihilation AND anal probing over those choices.
Reply
Gunn
11/7/2013 10:39:25 am
"...or face nuclear annihilation and/or anal probing." 11/7/2013 10:42:30 am
I was just making a humorous point about the bizarre claims for what aliens allegedly want to do to us. I purposely put them in an unusual order to emphasize the wide-ranging and often silly nature of claims for the aliens' plans.
titus pullo
11/8/2013 02:51:39 am
on the anal probing..I would avoid New Mexico, the cops there seem to be a little bit too focused on that..if you have read the recent article on that poor guy they thought had drugs in his behind..
Gunn
11/7/2013 10:32:01 am
Scientology comes to mind; a religion with aliens at the top as a final surprise one pays dearly for. (Talking about the cash, not the crappy after-effects of being deceived.)
Reply
Scott Hamilton
11/7/2013 07:09:18 am
I'd very much like to read some of the pre-1960 Soviet material. I have a pretty good collection of 50s flying saucer books, but while they often poke towards the idea ancient flying saucers, but always shy away from intervention. The Soviet material would provide an interesting snapshot of how intervention theory developed.
Reply
Erik G
11/7/2013 08:17:58 am
Jason -- what exactly do you mean by 'alternative history'? Do Graham Robb's speculations about the Celts in 'The Ancient Paths' fall into this category? Or, for example, certain current academic hypotheses that the Germanic 'invasions' of the Roman Empire were not invasions as such but long-term relatively peaceful infiltrations? If someone argues that an aspect of orthodox history is incorrect, does that make him or her an 'alternative historian'? Our interpretations of historical events have often been revised in the past and will continue to be revised in future as new evidence comes to light. But until such revisions become accepted, do they constitute 'alternative histories'?
Reply
The Other J.
11/7/2013 09:11:39 am
I take your point -- "alternative history" is a bit of a slippery term. At least in the way it's been used here, I think it refers to people who refuse to accept the establish methodologies of history as a discipline, often while attacking the discipline and academia as a whole. They then attempt to replace historical accounts with their own versions of history while actively rejecting already-existing historical accounts out of hand and the methodologies that result in what we would recognize as actual historical scholarship (peer review, proper documentation, primary research, attempting to anticipate and address counter-arguments within their own work rather than avoiding them and then attacking those who identify those counter-arguments in the public sphere, etc.). So I think it's more about approach and methods than it is about differing takes on historical events; if there were no differing takes on historical events, there wouldn't be a discipline of history, just stenographers.
Reply
Varika
11/7/2013 10:15:27 am
TECHNICALLY, yes, until revisions become accepted--that is, supported by enough evidence to pass muster--they are "alternative history." However, this blog isn't about academic hypotheses based on research that meets rigorous standards and is documented so that other researchers can check for themselves. This blog is about those alternative tales that can't even reliably be called hypotheses, much less theories, and are based on poor scholarship, unreliable SECONDARY sources, lack of documentation, and conspiracy-mongering. If you presented a book about Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire that was based on a single book written in 1874 that didn't cite its primary sources, you'd be in the latter category. If you presented a well thought-out book about Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire that cited writings from the time period, current and past archeological evidence, AND books from the 1870s that DID cite their primary material, you would probably receive one of those "Look, this is so cool" articles that Jason does periodically, instead.
Reply
11/7/2013 10:20:18 am
Anyone who wants to buy me a copy is free to do so! I'm maxed out on my book budget for the year.
Varika
11/7/2013 12:12:40 pm
I would, Jason, but I can guarantee you that my resources are slimmer than yours, unfortunately. I was only trying to admit to the shortcomings with the previous article, as you did in the article itself. It's said sort of in the tone of, "I'd LIKE to, but I don't really EXPECT to anytime soon." Mostly because you're generally pretty awesome about actually getting the source if you can manage it, already. 11/7/2013 10:18:50 am
That's an excellent question, and it gets to a demarcation problem. I have fallen to using "alternative history" as a catch-all mostly for those who reject the entire historical paradigm on slim to no evidence. Thus fringe topics like Atlantis, aliens, global cult conspiracies, and so on fall under the label but specific, limited challenges to established ideas do not. I'll admit that it's not very precise and it's a little like the Supreme Court definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it." That said, most alternative historians and/or alternative archaeologists use those labels themselves, from which I have borrowed them. It was, I believe, what Hancock and Bauval called themselves back in the late 1990s.
Reply
Erik G
11/8/2013 03:08:24 am
To Jason, The Other J, and Varika -- Thank you for your comments. These are much appreciated. I quite agree that hypotheses must be tested and proven in a rigorous manner before they can be adjudged correct or, at the very least, deemed feasible. Strangely enough, the Roman period, both Republican and Imperial, is filled with inconsistencies -- the Romans and their various political factions were masters of propaganda. The current invasion/infiltration hypotheses are largely centered on archaeological evidence -- Roman writings of the time are not necessarily trustworthy -- and on subsequent events.
The Other J.
11/8/2013 04:47:33 am
Erik G, I was thinking of the untrustworthiness of some historical accounts after I posted my initial response, particularly how Caesar propagandized the Gauls into demons to help garner political power. That would seem to make some primary sources difficult to work with.
Thane
11/8/2013 10:19:27 am
The History as a rigorous discipline is relatively new. I would suggest that anything written while paid for by a patron or dedicated to someone rich and powerful, especially prior to the 17th century when more of a scientific method was applied to the history discipline, is probably tainted and can't be taken entirely at face value. It would need to be interpreted in the context of who the patron was (or to whom it was dedicated) and what the historian was trying to achieve. Was it merely a paycheck? Was it to influence the powerful person to a course of action? These things are hard to determine and so, we look at other contemporaneous records and other histories of the same topic and apply, one hopes, logical analysis and keep the speculation to reasonable and thoughtful levels.
Varika
11/7/2013 08:58:18 am
Certainly you should not stop including the politics in the blog! It's the same reason why kids don't tend to understand the foundation of the American nation; the teacher focuses so much on the dates and order of events, the kids don't understand that this was an inevitable chain on the basis of the events that came before it. How can throwing crate after crate of tea into the Boston Harbor make ANY sense at all, if you don't understand that the taxes on tea had been raised outrageously, along with other harsh and punitive taxes being inflicted, and all without any say in it at all? If you KNOW about the politics, then you understand it as early American "Occupy Wall Street." And how can you understand why not having any say in the taxes was so abhorrent if you don't understand that the Colonies had been largely self-governed for a couple hundred years by then--with local representative governments? And how can you understand why the sudden change from England if you don't understand that the ENGLISH government was engaged in a power struggle between king and parliament, and the Colonies were one of the battlegrounds?
Reply
charlie
11/7/2013 10:56:03 am
Jason,
Reply
Gunn
11/7/2013 11:16:07 am
"...don't have enough information to go by."
Reply
Varika
11/7/2013 12:32:26 pm
Some "alternative thinkers" are the explorers. Most are just the "sit at home and brag about things that never happened"-ers, the "I wasn't really there but this is what would have happened if I had been"-ers. The "Grandpa, shut up, you don't know what you're talking about" -ers.
Reply
Gunn
11/7/2013 03:45:41 pm
You must be right again, because there's no explanation of the politics involved in the KRS, and we don't have much accurate information, either, in part because of that. We know vaguely the identification of the men and why they came, and that there was a tragedy while camped out and fishing, but little else, other than they knew where they were, geographically. Politics weren't explained.
Varika
11/8/2013 12:52:58 pm
What we DO have, Gunn, is the sociopolitical information about the time and place in which the stone was uncovered--immigrant population faced with a not particularly welcoming "mainstream" culture, and suddenly this stone that just HAPPENS to claim that the cultural ancestors of the immigrant population were there well before the "mainstream" population? It rather significantly reduces the level of reliability of the stone itself. What evidence there is to support the stone's purported story is strong enough for you to believe in it. It's not strong enough to overcome that lack of reliability for me, as much as I might LIKE for it to be true. For you, the KRS is "an explorer." For me, it's "local bar crap." I don't see us meeting in the middle without something a WHOLE lot more convincing than holes in the ground. Maybe a hole with nine bodies in it, for instance. Or nine holes with one body each, even.
Uh, well, we don't need no stinkin' bodies!
Thane
11/7/2013 12:34:17 pm
Jason,
Reply
Varika
11/7/2013 01:34:56 pm
Thane, in order for one group to consider themselves superior, they must, BY DEFINITION, consider at least one other group INferior. You sound like someone who has embraced some of these ideas and is now horribly uncomfortable with someone pointing out that there is bigotry involved. Now, obviously, I'm not in your head to know if this is true or not, but I can tell you that's how you're coming across right now.
Reply
Thane
11/7/2013 03:31:44 pm
There is always some level of group identification. Most groups, if not all, consider themselves superior to other groups especially rival groups. We see this in the fan base of sports all the time. There are those in one group that may come to hate or find a need to denigrate the other team and/or its fan base but the vast majority don't attach a negative (as in hostile) feeling against the rival group or a visceral need denigrate the rival team.
Thane
11/7/2013 03:39:07 pm
One other thing, Varika, I do agree that the facts about the origin of theories and any biases held by the theorists should be discussed and made available so that people can have a better understanding and make informed decisions about what they will believe. It also allows them to do their own research and fact checking.
Gunn
11/7/2013 04:12:15 pm
People would be foolish to compare racial human intelligence against another people bent more on survival than developing new technologies. What made stone age peoples different from one another across the globe? Opportunity. Why did some advance faster than others? Again, natural resources, opportunity, time to think of something besides surviving. And then, some migrate and start almost over again. How is anyone able to say one race is smarter than another, when there is a staggering difference between the rates of advancements in different cultures, depending on past opportunities? And of course intelligence is defined in different ways. The Native Americans were more intelligent about how to survive in the wilderness than the first white people to come, for example.
Thane
11/7/2013 04:48:21 pm
Yes, Gunn, agreed. There are many reasons for disparate development and adoption of technologies from resources availability to cultural preferences.
Paul Cargile
11/7/2013 11:26:50 pm
As a humorous aside: Isn't one group of people who decide there shouldn't be racists imposing their own superiority over those they identify as inferior racists? Aren't these people also expressing bigotry against people they deem unenlightened?
Thane
11/8/2013 01:27:17 am
@Paul....
Varika
11/8/2013 12:42:24 pm
Just a quick note, Thane--I did not say or even mean that you appear to be racist. I said--and meant--that you appear to be uncomfortable with some ideas that you embrace being racist. It has been my experience that people who are truly racist aren't particularly uncomfortable with it, but people who don't want to be racist and yet still find certain racist ideas comforting are. In short, I meant that you come across as someone who doesn't want to think about something because he might have to change his mind about it if he did.
Thane
11/8/2013 12:53:52 pm
Hi Varika
titus pullo
11/8/2013 03:05:37 am
Great posts..I've learned quite a lot on this chain.
Reply
Thane
11/8/2013 10:05:35 am
Hi Titus
Reply
Thane
11/8/2013 10:21:43 am
Class, not call, conscious
titus pullo
11/8/2013 03:16:21 am
Now that I'm between conference calls I might as well ask you all a question I've had for a long time..the term prehistory I guess means before the historical record. I know a little of the theories of how humans have three superficial races (Sub Sahara, Indo-European, and Oriental). I hope I'm not using politically incorrect terms. But I've read about the supposed common indo-european language and the origin in the caucassus. So is the theory that modern man walked out of Africa into the middle east and central asia and from there developed superficial differences based on where they went? Then after interacting, you get the mixes you see say in southeast asia, oceania and so on. Why did indo-europeans develop characteristics different than say chinese? Are we talking about environmental factors that impacted very small groups before they exapnded west and east? This topic seems to be so sensitive v due to racism in the past..but there obviously was some sort of localized differences in humans..related to our path out of Africa if that is the birthplace of modern man (I read some theories that modern man evolved in central asia).
Reply
The Other J.
11/8/2013 05:39:48 am
You're on the right track, but of course it's a bit more complicated. I'm no geneticist, but I've done a little bit of research into this subject and took part in a DNA study, so I'll offer what I can.
Reply
Gary
11/8/2013 01:16:37 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Inuit's ancestors moved to the far north long after the northern European's ancestors, by thousands of years, so perhaps there has just not been enough time for them to make the change.
The Other J.
11/8/2013 02:43:41 pm
Gary, I think the Indian population study proved that with the right climatic pressures, the superficial changes can happen relatively quickly -- in the hundreds of years, not thousands. But you get the same sort of thing with other northern populations who hunted in the sea.
Gary
11/9/2013 01:15:54 am
Well, that makes sense to me on a personal level. Perhaps my ancestors didn't have enough fish in their diets because I have pale skin and I'm at risk for skin cancer (which I have had). I have to avoid the sun and take vitamin D supplements to compensate.
B L
11/8/2013 03:27:43 am
Go ahead and mention the political agenda of the various alternate historians that you critique. But, do so only when those alternate historians are open and public about the political agendas they are trying to push.
Reply
B L
11/8/2013 04:01:18 am
Further, I think you sometimes give too much credit to some of these alternate historians and alien lovers when you try to deduce a hidden political agenda in their narratives.
Reply
The Other J.
11/8/2013 04:57:34 am
Let's take your point to its obvious conclusion: Even if David Icke isn't Antisemitic, does that mean his lizard people claims aren't Antisemitic even though they're modeled on anti-Semitic propaganda like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? And even if he doesn't see the Antisemitism involved, does that make his work any less problematic if others see in it reasons to justify Antisemitism?
B L
11/8/2013 05:39:03 am
The Other J.:
The Other J.
11/8/2013 05:42:46 am
So does that mean unintended consequences should just be ignored? I can't do anything about the flu viruses my wife brings home from the school she teaches at, but that doesn't mean I won't take extra care to wash my hands more during flu season. Again, there's no need to be irresponsible or to just bury your head in the sand.
B L
11/8/2013 05:44:41 am
The human personality is dynamic. It constantly changes. People who buy in to Scott Wolter's fancies at this moment in time will change their own opinion as they start down the path on their own journey into research. Their own research will contradict what Wolter has told them. Unintended consequences of the progenation of dumb theories can just as likely lead to a good outcome.
The Other J.
11/8/2013 06:27:43 am
I'm going to just agree to disagree here. I don't has as much faith that people following Wolter's work will do as much research into it as Jason, or half the people who came upon Jason's website in trying to figure out what Wolter was on about. Jason's occasional posts about the hate mail he receives when H2 repeats episodes would suggest the opposite is the case, and I'm quite sure many of those hate-mailers wouldn't have come to the opinions about European origins of everything Native American if it weren't for Wolter.
Only Me
11/8/2013 06:34:37 am
"I'm quite sure many of those hate-mailers wouldn't have come to the opinions about European origins of everything Native American if it weren't for Wolter."
B L
11/8/2013 08:01:07 am
I agree that we disagree. I am not a student of history. My talents gravitate elsewhere. In fact, I really had no interest in history at all. I came across Holy Grail in America by accident when it first aired and was instantly intrigued. It made me want to hear more of what Wolter had to say. If you've watched the show then you know the first hour is an introduction to all of the artifacts: the Kensington Runestone, the Spirit Pond stones, the Newport Tower, etc. Nothing to argue about here; they all exist, right? The second half of the show is where the craziness starts, but it happens so slowly and calculatedly that the average viewer doesn't understand it is happening. I picked up Wolter's books. To a non-historian like me they wove a pretty entertaining story, and the story made me hungry. Wolter only had the two books at the time, so I was forced to go elsewhere for further information. It took about 15 minutes outside of Wolter's world before I knew that he was seriously misguided. I can laugh at him (and myself) now.
B L
11/8/2013 09:00:11 am
I would also point out that hate mail such as Jason receives doesn't come exclusively from the uneducated masses, Other J. I will remind you of the shameful treatment Jim Egan endured when he respectfully entered this very forum to explain his ideas. He seems like a lovely man. Disagree with the ideas, debate the ideas, but why hate the man? If engaging in such behavior is evidence of one's ignorance and lack of education then there are several supporters of Jason's who chime in regularly here on this blog that would be surprised to know how stupid they are.
The Other J.
11/8/2013 11:19:57 am
I'm not sure I follow you here:
Only Me
11/8/2013 09:48:32 am
I hear you, BL. I try not to label anyone ignorant or stupid, until they are presented with compelling evidence that overturns their pet theory...and refuse to consider that evidence as equally valid. Yes, alternate historians have the benefit of physical objects. That means that their speculation can be falsified. But if it is proven false, and they still remain adamant, at that point, they are ignorant/stupid, because they choose to be. With AAT, it's unfalsifiable....but the evidence they present can be weighed. I come to the same conclusion if their evidence is found lacking, and they choose to press forward.
Reply
B L
11/8/2013 02:12:10 pm
Thank you, Only Me and Other J., for engaging in the conversation and for keeping it civil.
Reply
Heidi Carter
11/10/2013 07:37:30 am
I come from a non traditional religious background although I was raised Baptist and rejected it at 18. So non traditional appropriations of various forms of myth making is a interest of mine. I also happen to love history, and so facts do matter but as a massage therapist, who has gained my bread and butter from the ideology of responsive rebuttals to modernism, I do question the hard line approach to debunking. Personally, when I see alternative health promoters like GAIAM TV and Massagewarehouse.com advertising the likes of David Icke and catering to this segment of the alternative minded commons, I just try to walk away and ignore it as best I can. Truth be told, I don't think that there is enough of a critical mass of people in the alternative wellness community to be able to recycle some of the utopian projects associated with alternative history. And yes, to call it utopian rather than post modern, is a matter of choice and an attempt on my part, to let people with different views do their thing while I do mine.
Reply
11/10/2013 08:30:49 am
The Nicene Council didn't push any set of documents, the issue of canon was not even on the table. The Gospels etc. were already established in use as received by bishops from the bishops who received them from The Apostles to judge by writings from the second and third centuries.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
September 2024
|